Experimental Comparison of Plunger-Type Wavemaker Models with Mean Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plunger-type wavemakers are advantageous for lab-oratory water channels due to their ease of use and ability to allow mean flow across the lateral boundary. While many methods exist for predicting wave amplitude, experimental work often remains limited and typically excludes mean flow. This study extends a recently developed analytical model based on the conservation of mass to include mean flow, and compares it to a semi-analytical Plunger-Type with Flow (PTF) model based on potential flow theory. Both models are experimentally validated across a range of wave parameters, including mean flow, frequency, and stroke amplitude. Results indicate that the new Equal Volume with Flow (EVF) model predicts the experimental ratio of wave amplitude to stroke amplitude more accurately, with an average error of 34.97%, compared to 83.71% for the PTF model. After applying an operational correction, the average error decreased to 21.71% for the EVF model and 19.43% for the PTF model. Thus, while both models are comparable with a correction factor, the EVF model is easier to implement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".