MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235223134 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14507

Sensitivity Analysis and Experimental Validation of Plunger-type Wavemakers Modelled with a Steady Flow

2021· dissertation· en· W4235223134 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Lowell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsPlungerSensitivity (control systems)Flow (mathematics)MechanicsFlow conditionsRange (aeronautics)Control theory (sociology)Variance (accounting)Open-channel flowSteady state (chemistry)SimulationMathematicsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsThermodynamicsElectronic engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of a steady flow in a water channel is a critical requirement for recreating accurately scaled ocean environments in a laboratory.In this thesis, the effect of a uniform flow on the theoretical model and experimental performance of a plungertype wavemaker has been investigated.Through a variance-based global sensitivity analysis, the influence of all input parameters on the output variance of the theoretical model was investigated.The analysis determined that the wave frequency had the highest influence on the wavemaker model.For a uniform flow, the first order and total effect sensitivity indices were estimated as 0.74±0.30%and 6.84±0.16%,respectively.Although the sensitivity of the model to the flow was relatively low compared to the wave frequency, there exists an impact due to the interaction of the flow parameter with the remaining model parameters.Therefore, it was established that the inclusion of the flow in the plunger-type wavemaker model is essential for application of the model to an experimental system.To investigate the performance of an experimental plunger-type wavemaker, an ultrasonic sensor was used to measure the generated wave profile for a variety of testing conditions based on the results of the sensitivity analysis.It was observed that as the difference between the experimental results and the theoretical model increased, both frequency and flow increased.Therefore, a corrected model was suggested and the operational range of the experimental system was established.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207