Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If a current is composed of a number of constituents with different frequencies, then quadratic friction may be analyzed at the same frequencies. The ratios of the constituents of the friction differ from the ratios for the current itself, with a classic result being that for unidirectional flow a very weak current constituent experiences proportionately 50% more friction than a strong constituent. Here, exact results for the magnitude of the friction constituents are derived and confirmed numerically. The results are applied to the tidal currents in Juan de Fuca Strait and the Strait of Georgia, showing that minor constituents experience proportionately more friction than the main constituent by an amount that varies spatially but is typically less than the classic result of 50%. For two-dimensional currents it is shown that, if there are two current constituents with the same ellipticity and major axis direction, the friction coefficients are separable functions of the current constituent ratio and the ellipticity. Some results are derived for two constituents with different ellipticity and major axis direction. For the case of two constituents with rectilinear but misaligned currents, each constituent experiences friction inclined at an angle to its current. Last, the effect of a tidal current on the bottom friction experienced by a steady flow is investigated for arbitrary relative magnitudes and directions of the tide and steady flow. In particular, the inclination of the mean friction to the mean flow is quantified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".