MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096006741

Large-Eddy Simulation of Pollutant Dispersion in Downtown Montreal: Evaluation of the Convective and Turbulent Mass Fluxes

2015· article· en· W7096006741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulencePlumeDispersion (optics)ConvectionStack (abstract data type)Turbulent diffusionMass fluxFlow (mathematics)Convective Boundary LayerFlux (metallurgy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Large-Eddy Simulation of pollutant dispersion from a stack on the roof of a low-rise building in downtown Montreal is performed. Two wind directions are considered, with different wind flow patterns and plume behaviours. The resulting mean concentration field is observed and analysed with the computed (mean) convective and turbulent mass fluxes. These two concepts allow gaining some insight into the dispersion process and analysing the deficiencies of less sophisticated turbulence models. When the emitting building is located downstream of a high-rise building (case SW), the turbulent mass flux is directed from the high to low levels of mean concentration and the gradient diffusion hypothesis often used with steady models is verified. However, when the influence of the surrounding buildings is smaller (case W), a counter-gradient mechanism is observed in the streamwise direction, confirming the results obtained on isolated buildings. The present study supports the use of generic, simplified cases to investigate environmental processes; the conclusions can subsequently be applied to real and more complex cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→