MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109190012 · doi:10.1017/s0022112004002769

Nonlinear effects in reflecting and colliding internal wave beams

2005· article· en· W2109190012 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Tabaei, T. R. Akylas, Kevin G. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNonlinear systemBeam (structure)HarmonicCollisionAmplitudeReflection (computer programming)MechanicsFlow (mathematics)Computational physicsClassical mechanicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using small-amplitude expansions, we discuss nonlinear effects in the reflection from a sloping wall of a time-harmonic (frequency $\omega$ ) plane-wave beam of finite cross-section in a uniformly stratified Boussinesq fluid with constant buoyancy frequency $N_{0}$ . The linear solution features the incident and a reflected beam, also of frequency $\omega$ , that is found on the same (opposite) side to the vertical as the incident beam if the angle of incidence relative to the horizontal is less (greater) than the wall inclination. As each of these beams is an exact nonlinear solution, nonlinear interactions are confined solely in the vicinity of the wall where the two beams meet. At higher orders, this interaction region acts as a source of a mean and higher-harmonic disturbances with frequencies $n\omega$ ( $n\,{=}\,2,3,\ldots$ ); for $n\omega\,{<}\,N_{0}$ the latter radiate in the far field, forming additional reflected beams along $\sin^{-1}(n\omega/N_{0})$ to the horizontal. Depending on the flow geometry, higher-harmonic beams can be found on the opposite side of the vertical from the primary reflected beam. Using the same approach, we also discuss collisions of two beams propagating in different directions. Nonlinear interactions in the vicinity of the collision region induce secondary beams with frequencies equal to the sum and difference of those of the colliding beams. The predictions of the steady-state theory are illustrated by specific examples and compared against unsteady numerical simulations.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations109
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207