MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065889579 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.235

Thixotropic gravity currents

2013· article· en· W2065889579 on OpenAlexaff
Duncan R. Hewitt, Neil J. Balmforth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThixotropyInclined planeMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Gravity currentLubrication theoryRheologyInstabilityGeologyLubricationPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a model for thixotropic gravity currents flowing down an inclined plane that combines lubrication theory for shallow flow with a rheological constitutive law describing the degree of microscopic structure. The model is solved numerically for a finite volume of fluid in both two and three dimensions. The results illustrate the importance of the degree of initial ageing and the spatio-temporal variations of the microstructure during flow. The fluid does not flow unless the plane is inclined beyond a critical angle that depends on the ageing time. Above that critical angle and for relatively long ageing times, the fluid dramatically avalanches downslope, with the current becoming characterized by a structured horseshoe-shaped remnant of fluid at the back and a raised nose at the advancing front. The flow is prone to a weak interfacial instability that occurs along the border between structured and de-structured fluid. Experiments with bentonite clay show broadly similar phenomenological behaviour to that predicted by the model. Differences between the experiments and the model are discussed.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207