MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146143078 · doi:10.1017/s002211200999317x

Holmboe wave fields in simulation and experiment

2010· article· en· W2146143078 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

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWavenumberPhysicsAmplitudeVortexWavelengthMechanicsInstabilityDirect numerical simulationPairingClassical mechanicsOpticsCondensed matter physicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basic wave field resulting from Holmboe's instability is studied both numerically and experimentally. Comparisons between the direct numerical simulations (DNS) and laboratory experiments result in Holmboe waves that are similar in their appearance and phase speed. However, different boundary conditions result in mean flows that display gradual variations either temporally (in the simulations) or spatially (in the experiments). These differences are found to affect the evolution of the dominant wavenumber and amplitude of the wave field. The simulations exhibit a nonlinear ‘wave coarsening’ effect, whereby the energy is shifted to lower wavenumbers in discrete merging events. This process is typically found to result from either ejections of mixed fluid away from the density interface or vortex pairing. In the experiments, energy is transferred to lower wavenumbers by the ‘stretching’ of the wave field by a gradually varying mean velocity. This stretching results in a reduction of wave amplitude compared with the DNS.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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