Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mudflow is destructive because of its intrinsic tendency to become unstable, leading to roll waves that can impact structures with great force. We examined the rheological properties of landslide muds, conducted direct numerical simulations of the roll waves in the mudflow, and compared the results obtained from a shallow mudflow model. Simulations are performed to study (i) the temporal growth of periodic disturbances of different wavelengths and Froude numbers and (ii) the spatial development of the wave packet produced by a local disturbance. Most existing studies of roll waves are concerned with periodic roll waves derived from shallow mudflow models, assuming hydrostatic pressure variation and a constant velocity profile over the depth. However, this paper focuses on the spatial development of front-runners. The solution to the hyperbolic equations, derived from the shallow-mudflow approximation, is shock waves of depth and velocity discontinuities at the wavefronts. On the other hand, the direct numerical simulations of the laminar mudflow can show a more realistic mudflow instability that includes wave breaking and entrapment of air during the beaking. Nevertheless, despite the discontinuity, the shallow-mudflow model is still a reasonable approximation in the region away from waves breaking when the wavelength of the front runner becomes sufficiently large.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".