MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153140118 · doi:10.1017/s0022112008005041

The dam-break problem for viscous fluids in the high-capillary-number limit

2009· article· en· W2153140118 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Ancey, S. COCHARD, Nicolas Andreini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to water stress
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsReynolds numberFlumeLubrication theoryFlow (mathematics)GeologySimilarity (geometry)Front (military)Capillary actionViscous liquidLimit (mathematics)Position (finance)ViscosityGeometryPhysicsLubricationMathematicsMathematical analysisThermodynamicsComputer scienceTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were undertaken to investigate dam-break flows where a finite volume of highly viscous fluid (glucose with viscosity μ ≈ 350 Pa s) maintained behind a lock gate was released into a horizontal or inclined flume. The resulting sequence of flow-depth profiles was tracked using a three-dimensional visualization system. In the low-Reynolds-number and high-capillary-number limits, analytical solutions can be obtained from the Navier–Stokes equations using lubrication theory and matched asymptotic expansions. At shallow slopes, similarity solutions can also be worked out. While the variation in the front position scaled with time as predicted by theory for both horizontal and sloping flumes, there was a systematic delay in the front position observed. Moreover, taking a closer look at the experimental flow-depth profiles shows that they were similar, but they noticeably deviated from the theoretical similarity form for horizontal planes. For sloping beds, the flow-depth profile is correctly predicted provided that different scalings are used at shallow and large slopes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicPlant responses to water stressFrench-language works237,207