MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401367168 · doi:10.1201/9781003323037-48

Laboratory study of density-driven streamwise orientated vortices at a symmetric confluence

2024· book-chapter· en· W4401367168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason Duguay, Pascale M. Biron, Jay Lacey, Christophe Bergeron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfluenceTributaryVortexFront (military)Flow (mathematics)MechanicsGeometryGeologyMixing (physics)PhysicsMeteorologyMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have shown small density gradients between a confluence’s tributaries (i.e. ∆ ρ = 0.5 kg/m 3 ) can greatly affect its secondary flow structure. In particular, streamwise orientated vortices (SOVs) at the Coaticook-Massawippi confluence (Quebec, Canada) were purported to be previously undocumented confined density-driven gravity currents. This flow structure develops when a near-bed front of the dense tributary and a near-surface front of the light tributary are confined by the tributaries that oppose them. However, neither the confined gravity current mechanism nor the resulting density SOVs have empirical support. A laboratory model of a symmetric confluence with a tunable density gradient was constructed for this purpose and persistent clockwise rotating density SOVs were confirmed in its mixing interface. The empirical density SOVs share many similarities to those observed and modeled at the Coaticook- Massawippi confluence, suggesting they are a universal and scale-independent secondary flow structure when certain hydrodynamic and density conditions align.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes→French-language works237,207→