MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206729781 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2021.961

Fracture patterns in viscoplastic gravity currents

2022· article· en· W4206729781 on OpenAlexaff
Thomasina V. Ball, Neil J. Balmforth, Ariel P. Dufresne, Stephen W. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsViscoplasticityInstabilityMaterials scienceMechanicsViscositySurface tensionRotational symmetryFracture (geology)Composite materialThermodynamicsPhysicsConstitutive equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constant-flux gravity currents of viscoplastic fluid remain axisymmetric when extruded onto a dry horizontal plane. However, if the plane is coated with a shallow layer of water, the current suffers a dramatic non-axisymmetric instability in which localized $v$ -shaped cuts appear in the outer edge where the viscoplastic fluid is in contact with water. These ‘fractures’ lengthen and guide the subsequent radial outflow, leading to distinctive flower-like patterns. This pattern formation process is illustrated for two viscoplastic materials, an aqueous suspension of Carbopol, and a mixture of water and joint compound (a kaolin-based, commercially available product). The fracturing spreads over the entire upper surface of the current when deeper water baths are used, complicating the extrusion patterns. The instability can be removed entirely when the ambient water layer is replaced by an immiscible liquid of comparable viscosity, indicating that the presence of water at the surface is key to the pattern formation process. We conjecture that the underlying mechanism is the fracture under tension of the viscoplastic material, exacerbated by the ambient water.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207