Testing a simple model of gas bubble dynamics in porous media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bubble dynamics in porous media are of great importance in industrial and natural systems. Of particular significance is the impact that bubble‐related emissions (ebullition) of greenhouse gases from porous media could have on global climate (e.g., wetland methane emissions). Thus, predictions of future changes in bubble storage, movement, and ebullition from porous media are needed. Methods exist to predict ebullition using numerical models, but all existing models are limited in scale (spatial and temporal) by high computational demands or represent porous media simplistically. A suitable model is needed to simulate ebullition at scales beyond individual pores or relatively small collections (<10−4 m3) of connected pores. Here we present a cellular automaton model of bubbles in porous media that addresses this need. The model is computationally efficient, and could be applied over large spatial and temporal extent without sacrificing fine‐scale detail. We test this cellular automaton model against a physical model and find a good correspondence in bubble storage, bubble size, and ebullition between both models. It was found that porous media heterogeneity alone can have a strong effect on ebullition. Furthermore, results from both models suggest that the frequency distributions of number of ebullition events per time and the magnitude of bubble loss are strongly right skewed, which partly explains the difficulty in interpreting ebullition events from natural systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".