MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391757562 · doi:10.1002/fld.5274

Two‐ and three‐dimensional multiphase mesh‐free particle modeling of transitional landslide with<i>μ</i>(<i>I</i>) rheology

2024· article· en· W4391757562 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Jafari Nodoushan, Mohanna Tajnesaie, Ahmad Shakibaeinia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubaerialCohesion (chemistry)LandslideRheologyGeologySmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsParticle (ecology)Multiphase flowMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Landslides, which are the sources of most catastrophic natural disasters, can be subaerial (dry), submerged (underwater), or semi‐submerged (transitional). Semi‐submerged or transitional landslides occur when a subaerial landslide enters water and turns to submerged condition. Predicting the behavior of such a highly dynamic multi‐phase granular flow system is challenging, mainly due to the water entry effects, such as wave impact and partial saturation (and resulted cohesion). The mesh‐free particle methods, such as the moving particle semi‐implicit (MPS) method, have proven their capabilities for the simulation of the highly dynamic multiphase systems. This study develops and evaluates a numerical model, based on the MPS particle method in combination with the μ ( I ) rheological model, to simulate the morphodynamic of the granular mass in semi‐submerged landslides in two and three dimensions. An algorithm is developed to consider partial saturation (and resulting cohesion) during the water entry. Comparing the numerical results with the experimental measurements shows the ability of the proposed model to accurately reproduce the morphological evolution of the granular mass, especially at the moment of water entry.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.341 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207