Correction to “Prediction of fingering in porous media”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] In the paper “Prediction of fingering in porous media” by Zhi Wang, Jan Feyen, and David E. Elrick (Water Resources Research 34(9), 2183–2190, 1998), the authors developed 24 specific criteria for predicting unstable flow in porous media, based on the Chuoke equation [Chuoke et al., 1959]. However, some of the results were inconsistent with predictions by others. For instance, de Rooij [2000] noted that the Wang criteria showed unstable flow for overly rapid upward flow in contrary to Philip's [1975] theory that predicted an unconditionally stable flow. These discrepancies resulted from three mistakes in the theoretical development, namely, (1) an inconsistency in the transcription of the Chuoke equation (equation (1) in the original paper), (2) a discrepancy between the definition of σ* compared to the Chuoke definition (leading to a wrong equation (3a)) and, (3) sign errors in the development of the criteria (Table 1). In the following, we give the correct development and revise the 24 stability criteria of Wang et al. [1998]. [3] Chuoke's formulation seemed ambiguous because the wetting characteristics of the fluids were not clearly defined. Therefore Wang et al. [1998] stipulated that fluid 1 be the nonwetting fluid and fluid 2 be the wetting fluid. This was based on the experimental setup by Chuoke et al. [1959]. Wang et al. [1998] also conceptualized that the macroscopic interfacial tension σ* is inherently negative for the nonwetting fluid (fluid 1) displacing the wetting fluid (fluid 2). The wettability of the displacing fluid was defined by introducing a wettability variable e, valued e = 1 for the wetting fluid displacing the nonwetting fluid, and e = −1 for the reversed displacement. Hence the interfacial tension, σ* = e∣σ*∣, is positive when e = 1 and negative when e = −1. Accordingly, equation (1) as a case for e = −1 in the analysis of Chuoke et al. [1959] was generalized into equations (2) and (3) in the paper of Wang et al. [1998]. [6] On the basis of (3), we delineated Chuoke et al.'s [1959] criterion into 24 subcriteria (as shown in Table 1) according to specific combinations of fluid properties and relative positions in porous media. Table 1 provides a direct comparison of the individual criteria with those in Table 1 of Wang et al. [1998]. [7] Note that, with these corrections, the wettable and nonwettable halves of Table 1 are now identical, indicating that parameter e does not affect the onset of instability. Moreover, rows 3 and 4 coalesce into rows 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore these identical pairs of criteria can be regrouped in terms of relative position of the heavier and lighter fluid and in terms of the viscosity contrast. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
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 | 0.007 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.017 |
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".