MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966851011 · doi:10.1017/s0022112004009930

Dynamics of roll waves

2004· article· en· W1966851011 on OpenAlexaff
Neil J. Balmforth, Shreyas Mandre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Thin Films
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFroude numberInstabilityMechanicsAmplitudeBreaking waveTurbulenceWavelengthKondratiev waveFlow (mathematics)Linear stabilityPhysicsDragNonlinear systemGeologyClassical mechanicsWave propagationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shallow-water equations with bottom drag and viscosity are used to study the dynamics of roll waves. First, we explore the effect of bottom topography on linear stability of turbulent flow over uneven surfaces. Low-amplitude topography is found to destabilize turbulent roll waves and lower the critical Froude number required for instability. At higher amplitude, the trend reverses and topography stabilizes roll waves. At intermediate topographic amplitude, instability can be created at much lower Froude numbers due to the development of hydraulic jumps in the equilibrium flow. Second, the nonlinear dynamics of the roll waves is explored, with numerical solutions of the shallow-water equations complementing an asymptotic theory relevant near onset. We find that trains of roll waves undergo coarsening due to waves overtaking one another and merging, lengthening the scale of the pattern. Unlike previous investigations, we find that coarsening does not always continue to its ultimate conclusion (a single roll wave with the largest spatial scale). Instead, coarsening becomes interrupted at intermediate scales, creating patterns with preferred wavelengths. We quantify the coarsening dynamics in terms of linear stability of steady roll-wave trains.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations151
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207