MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006473520 · doi:10.1017/s0022112007007288

Intrusive gravity currents propagating along thin and thick interfaces

2007· article· en· W2006473520 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Sutherland, Joshua Nault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInviscid flowMechanicsIntrusionPhysicsGeometryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inviscid gravity currents released from a finite-length lock are known to propagate at a constant speed to a predicted finite distance before decelerating. By extension this should occur in a two-layer fluid with equal upper- and lower-layer depths for an intrusion having the average density of the ambient. The experiments presented here show this is not necessarily the case. The finite-depth thickness of the interface non-negligibly influences the evolution of the intrusion so that it propagates well beyond the predicted constant-speed limit; it propagates without decelerating beyond 22 lock lengths in a rectilinear geometry and beyond 6 lock radii in an axisymmetric geometry. Experiments and numerical simulations demonstrate that the intrusion speed decreases to half the two-layer speed in the circumstance in which the interface spans the domain. The corresponding long mode-2 interfacial wave speed increases rapidly with interfacial thickness, becoming comparable with the intrusion speed when the interfacial thickness is approximately one-quarter the domain height. For somewhat thinner interfacial thicknesses, the intrusion excites solitary waves that move faster than the long-wave speed. The coupling between intrusions and the waves they excite, together with reduced mixing of the current head, result in constant-speed propagation for longer times.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207