MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563278035 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0568

Linear stability analysis of two-way coupled particle-laden density current

2016· article· en· W2563278035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pouriya Amini, Ehsan Khavasi, Navid Asadizanjani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsInstabilityCurrent (fluid)MechanicsDragCurrent densityRADIUSViscosityDrag coefficientParticle (ecology)Particle densityThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stability of two-way coupled particle-laden density current is studied with the aim of linear stability analysis. Interfacial instability can be found in density currents, which effects entrainment and the rate of effective mixing. In this paper, we investigate the density current interfacial instability using linear stability theory, considering the particles attendance. The ultimate goal is to extract the governing equation for current with particles and study the effect of different parameters on stability of such currents. Base flow has velocity and density profiles of tangent hyperbolic type. Main current and particles are studied in two separate phases. It is found that current will be more stable as M 0 (M 0 = S ∗ N ∗ /ρ ∗ where ρ ∗ is the non-dimensional flow density, S ∗ is the Stokes’ drag coefficient, and N ∗ is the particles’ number density) grows, this is a result of number of particles and their radius, and also viscosity effects. The current is more stable as the growth rate increases. As the Richardson number in M 0 rises, the growth rate value decreases. As the slope of the river bed increases, the current is less stable.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.266
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

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207