MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sensitivity analysis of plunger-type wavemakers with water current

2020· article· en· W3155789586 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Lowell, Rishad A. Irani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Oceans 2020: Singapore – U.S. Gulf Coast · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlungerSensitivity (control systems)AmplitudeWedge (geometry)Current (fluid)Control theory (sociology)Channel (broadcasting)MechanicsPhysicsMathematicsEngineeringComputer scienceElectronic engineeringGeometryOpticsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of current in a water channel is a critical requirement for recreating accurately scaled ocean environments in a laboratory. In this paper, the effect of a uniform current on the theoretical model of a plunger-type wavemaker has been investigated through a variance-based global sensitivity analysis. The output of the wavemaker model is represented by the ratio of wave amplitude to stroke amplitude. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis evaluates the influence of all uncertain input parameters on the output variance of the model. In addition to the water current, the uncertain input parameters for the wavemaker model were established as the wave frequency, wedge angle, mean wedge depth, water height, and node points on the wavemaker boundary. To account for a range of limitations for both the plunger and the water channel in which it oscillates, the sensitivity analysis was performed for a broad distribution of each parameter. The analysis determined that the wave frequency had the highest influence on the output variance of the wavemaker model. For a uniform water current, the first order and total effect sensitivity indices were estimated as and, respectively. Although the sensitivity of the model to the current was relatively low compared to the wave frequency, there exists an impact due to the interaction of the current with the other parameters. Therefore, it was established that the inclusion of the current in the plunger-type wavemaker model is essential for application of the model to an experimental setup.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Oceans 2020: Singapore – U.S. Gulf CoastSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207