Comparison between the Impinging Jet Model and Experimental Stationary Downbursts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of downdraft from thunderstorm cloud which after the touch-down spreads radially is well-known in both the meteorological and the wind-engineering community and has been under active investigation by a lot of authors since more than 50 years. In this paper, a simple impinging jet simulation has been compared with experimental downbursts in order to understand to which extent this approach can be considered realistic for practical applications. \nWind tunnel experiments have been carried out at the University of Western Ontario’s WindEEE Dome Research Institute. The radial velocity was measured at various locations and the obtained profiles have been used as a reference for the comparison with the impinging jet, simulated by a steady-state Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach. As downbursts are highly transient phenomena, the impinging jet solution has been compared with the measured velocity profiles, which typically show three parts, i.e. ramp-up, plateau and dissipation, aiming to identify which part (if any) of the downburst lifecycle can be adequatelly represented by the steady-state numerical simulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".