MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170809120 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v3n1p42

A Study of Basalt Fingers Using Experiments and Numerical Simulations in Double-diffusive Systems

2011· article· en· W2170809120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O.P. Singh, Devesh Ranjan, J. Srinivasan, K. R. Sreenivas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific ResearchAgenția Națională pentru Cercetare și DezvoltareIndian Institute of Science
KeywordsBasaltGeologyPrandtl numberLavaConvectionMaterials scienceMechanicsPhysicsGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the evolution of columnar-basalt structures using simple laboratory experiments and numerical simulation in double-diffusive finger system. Effect of various parameters like Prandtl and Rayleigh numbers has been considered in the study. Columnar-basalts are geological formations observed in some of the ponded basalt-lava found at many parts of the world. They are prismatic rock joints having polygonal cross-section with straight edges and parallel faces. The typical cross-sectional dimensions vary from few centimeters to meter size and typical height from 30-50 meters. Hence the aspect ratio of the columnar-basalt in most cases is greater than 100. The limitations for the evolution of columnar basalts provided in the literature have been discussed. An order of magnitude analysis has been presented for the thickness of the unstable layer at the interface. In this paper, we demonstrate that the double diffusive finger convection system can produce features similar to those observed in columnar basalt and can serve as an alternative, plausible explanation for the evolution of columnar basalt structure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207