MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112027290 · doi:10.1155/s0161171201007955

Effects of diffraction and radiation on a submerged sphere

2001· article· en· W2112027290 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConservative vector fieldVelocity potentialInviscid flowMathematicsDiffractionBoundary value problemPotential flowCompressibilityAdded massMathematical analysisLaplace's equationFree surfaceBoundary (topology)Classical mechanicsMechanicsPhysicsVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with an investigation of the effects of diffraction and radiation on a submerged sphere in water of finite depth d . We assume that the fluid is homogeneous, inviscid, and incompressible, and the fluid motion is irrotational. In real situations, the submerged sphere will experience six degrees of freedom (i.e., motions); three translational and three rotational. In this paper, however, we consider a very idealized situation because of the complex nature of the physical problem. Two important motions, namely, the surge (horizontal oscillations) and the heave (vertical oscillations) motions are studied. Our attention is mainly focused on the hydrodynamic coefficients of these motions. The crux of the problem lies entirely on the determination of these coefficients which are inherently related to the determination of the motions of the submerged sphere in regular waves. This type of problem is usually solved by using potential theory, and mathematically, we look for the solution of a velocity potential which satisfies Laplace′s equation along with the free surface, body surface, and bottom boundary conditions in conjunction with a radiation condition. This boundary value problem, in fact, consists of two separate problems: (a) diffraction problem and (b) radiation problem.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical SciencesSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207