On the Causes of Pulsing in Continuous Turbidity Currents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Velocity pulsing has previously been observed in continuous turbidity currents in lakes and reservoirs, even though the input flow is steady. Several different mechanisms have been ascribed to the generation of these fluctuations, including Rayleigh‐Taylor (RT) instabilities that are related to surface lobes along the plunge line where the river enters the receiving water body and interfacial waves such as Kelvin‐Helmholtz instabilities. However, the understanding of velocity pulsing in turbidity currents remains limited. Herein we undertake a stability analysis for inclined flows and compare it against laboratory experiments, direct numerical simulations, and field data from Lillooet Lake, Canada, and Xiaolangdi Reservoir, China, thus enabling an improved understanding of the formative mechanisms for velocity pulsing. Both RT and Kelvin‐Helmholtz instabilities are shown to be prevalent in turbidity currents depending on initial conditions and topography, with plunge line lobes and higher bulk Richardson numbers favoring RT instabilities. Other interfacial wave instabilities (Holmboe and Taylor‐Caulfield) may also be present. While this is the most detailed analysis of velocity pulsing conducted to date, the differences in spatial scales between field, direct numerical simulations, and experiments and the potential complexity of multiple processes acting in field examples indicate that further work is required. In particular, there is a need for simultaneous field measurements at multiple locations within a given system to quantify the spatiotemporal evolution of such pulsing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".