MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783047616 · doi:10.3390/jmse6010007

Oil Droplet Transport under Non-Breaking Waves: An Eulerian RANS Approach Combined with a Lagrangian Particle Dispersion Model

2018· article· en· W2783047616 on OpenAlexaff
Roozbeh Golshan, Michel C. Boufadel, Victor A. Rodriguez, Xiaolong Geng, Feng Gao, Thomas King, Brian Robinson, Andrés Tejada‐Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsMechanicsEddy diffusionTurbulence modelingTurbulenceThermal diffusivityBreaking waveStokes driftDispersion (optics)ViscosityPhysicsMeteorologyThermodynamicsWave propagationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil droplet transport under a non-breaking deep water wave field is investigated herein using Computational Fluid dynamics (CFD). The Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations were solved to simulate regular waves in the absence of wind stress, and the resulting water velocities agreed with Stokes theory for waves. The RANS velocity field was then used to predict the transport of buoyant particles representing oil droplets under the effect of non-locally generated turbulence. The RANS eddy viscosity exhibited an increase with depth until reaching a maximum at approximately a wave height below the mean water level. This was followed by a gradual decrease with depth. The impact of the turbulence was modeled using the local value of eddy diffusivity in a random walk framework with the added effects of the gradient of eddy diffusivity. The vertical gradient of eddy viscosity increased the residence time of droplets in the water column region of high diffusivity; neglecting the gradient of eddy diffusivity resulted in a deviation of the oil plume centroid by more than a half a wave height after 10 wave periods.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207