MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966582206 · doi:10.1063/1.4914471

Gravity currents propagating up a slope in a two-layer fluid

2015· article· en· W1966582206 on OpenAlexafffund
Larissa J. Marleau, M. R. Flynn, Bruce Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGravity currentPhysicsCurrent (fluid)AmplitudeStratified flowMechanicsInternal waveOpticsTurbulenceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravity currents produced by partial-depth lock-release and travelling along the base of a two-layer stratified ambient are investigated as they propagate along a rising slope. The initial gravity current front speed is found to be consistent with a theory adapted from Shin et al. [“Gravity currents produced by lock exchange,” J. Fluid Mech. 521, 1-34 (2004)] to the case of partial-depth currents in two-layer ambients. The subsequent evolution depends on the gravity current speed relative to the speed of the interfacial disturbance it creates. The deceleration of supercritical gravity currents, which travel faster than the interfacial disturbance, is gradual and agrees well with the relationship developed by Marleau et al. [“Gravity currents propagating up a slope,” Phys. Fluids 26, 046605 (2014)] for upslope gravity currents in uniform density ambients. In several subcritical cases, the gravity current suddenly came to rest as a consequence of interactions with the interfacial disturbance. The disturbance amplitude, speed, and width are found to be nearly constant during its evolution. In cases for which the ambient interface intersected the bottom slope, the amplitude, speed, and width were nearly constant up to the point where the lower layer shallowed and the disturbance transformed into an upslope-propagating gravity current.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207