MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078786238 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2008-1-499

REGULAR AND BREAKING WAVES IN WAVE TANK FOR DISPERSION EFFECTIVENESS TESTING

2008· article· en· W2078786238 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreaking waveDissipationDispersion (optics)Wave tankWave heightMechanicsDeep waterWave shoalingWind wavePhysicsAcousticsWave propagationGeologyMechanical waveOpticsOceanographyLongitudinal waveThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The wave tank (32 m long × 2.0 m high × 0.6 m wide) at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia was used to simulate the propagation and breaking of deep water waves using a flap-type wavemaker. The water profile and velocity were measured using a wave gauge and an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV). The wave periods of interest ranged between 1.18 and 2.08 seconds. A technique for generating breaking waves at the same location in the tank was used to obtain a spilling and a plunging breaker. We evaluated the energy dissipation rate at various depths in the tank for regular and breaking waves. Plunging breaking waves had heights of 0.25m. For the breaking experiments, the energy dissipation rate decreased from around 1.0 10−2 watts/kg a few centimeters below the surface to less than 5.0 10−4 watt/kg 20 cm deep in the water column. The regular waves had, on the average, an energy dissipation rate of 5.0 10−6 watt/kg deep in the water column. This indicates that breaking plays an important role in the dispersion of oil at sea.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.192 · 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