MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121637665 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.627

Gravity current propagation up a valley

2014· article· en· W2121637665 on OpenAlexaff
C Spencer Jones, Claudia Cenedese, Eric P. Chassignet, P. F. Linden, Bruce Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGravity currentCurrent (fluid)PhysicsFront (military)TurbulenceHydrostatic equilibriumMechanicsChannel (broadcasting)Momentum (technical analysis)GeologyGeometryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The advance of the front of a dense gravity current propagating in a rectangular channel and V-shaped valley both horizontally and up a shallow slope is examined through theory, full-depth lock–release laboratory experiments and hydrostatic numerical simulations. Consistent with theory, experiments and simulations show that the front speed is relatively faster in the valley than in the channel. The front speed measured shortly after release from the lock is 5–22 % smaller than theory, with greater discrepancy found in upsloping V-shaped valleys. By contrast, the simulated speed is approximately 6 % larger than theory, showing no dependence on slope for rise angles up to ${\it\theta}=8^{\circ }$ . Unlike gravity currents in a channel, the current head is observed in experiments to be more turbulent when propagating in a V-shaped valley. The turbulence is presumably enhanced due to the lateral flows down the sloping sides of the valley. As a consequence, lateral momentum transport contributes to the observed lower initial speeds. A Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin like theory predicting the deceleration of the current as it runs upslope agrees remarkably well with simulations and with most experiments, within errors.

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)0.001
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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207