MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Review of Natural Dispersion Models

2014· review· en· W1977637023 on OpenAlexaff
Merv Fingas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispersion (optics)Water columnRacing slickColumn (typography)MechanicsFlumeTurbulenceMathematical modelOil dropletEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringGeologyMeteorologyMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsFlow (mathematics)StatisticsOil spillOceanographyGeometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural dispersion occurs when fine droplets of oil are transferred into the water column by wave action or sea turbulence. Depending on oil conditions and the amount of sea energy available, natural dispersion can be insignificant or it can temporarily displace a portion of the oil. Current models predict the amount of oil entering the water column, but do not deal with their stability or how long these droplets stay in the water column. The most commonly-used model is by Delvigne, who carried out experiments in a flume. Delvigne measured the droplets entering the water column using a simplified procedure. These data were then converted to a model to predict the entry of droplets into the water column. Delvigne recommended procedures to calculate the resurfacing of the dispersed droplets but no models have implemented these. A review of the mathematics of this procedure show that the Delvigne model might be adjusted to be more unit consistent and to correctly incorporate oil viscosity. The other models used include the Audunson and Mackay models. These models are also reviewed. The Audunson model is simple and does not incorporate any inputs other than the wind speed. Further, the Audunson model predicts that most slicks will dissipate within a day or a few days. The Mackay model predicts little natural dispersion. Although the Mackay model incorporates a sea state function, the effect of this is not as great as in other models. Several issues have been noted about all natural dispersion models. These are: 1 In all cases natural dispersion models predicted the input of droplets into the water column and suggestions were made about predicting rise and resurfacing, but this important second part was never implemented by anyone,2 The natural dispersion predicted was measured as a temporary phenomenon - that is the instantaneous input of droplets into the water column. The persistence was not measured. The equation was designed to yield only the temporary transport in the water. Later workers assumed that the natural dispersion portion was permanently dispersed, and3 All models over-predict natural dispersion, especially in cases of low sea states.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207