MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022190379 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2008-1-509

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR PREDICTING DISPERSION EFFECTIVENESS DUE TO WAVES

2008· article· en· W2022190379 on OpenAlexaff
Michel C. Boufadel, Erik Wickley-Olsen, Tom King, Zhengkai Li, Ken Lee, Albert D. Venosa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissipationDispersion (optics)BreakupKinetic energyMechanicsSalientEnergy (signal processing)Variable (mathematics)Statistical physicsPhysicsThermodynamicsMathematicsComputer scienceClassical mechanicsOpticsMathematical analysisStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The studies of dispersion of oil in wave tanks have reached their maturity in terms of analytical techniques for measuring and quantifying dispersion. However, there does not seem to be a theoretical framework for predicting or even interpreting the results based on the physics of the problem. One of the reasons is that the oil breakup studies were based on chemical reactors where the energy input is constant with time whereas the energy input to droplets varies with time under waves. For this reason, we present a holistic approach that accounts for the duration over which the oil is subjected to various intensities along with a droplet kinetics model that uses a variable energy dissipation rate function. A salient advantage of the droplet model is that it accounts for the effects of scale of problem, because it has been observed that large systems produce smaller droplets than smaller systems with the same average kinetic energy dissipation rate. We illustrate the usage of the model using simulated wave data.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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