Experimental laboratory waves with a plunger-type wavemaker in waves-against-flow conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a series of experiments was conducted to further expand the experimental benchmark of tests for plunger-type wavemakers in a laboratory water channel. The tests focus on the generation of waves in waves-against-flow conditions to study the impact of flow relative to the theoretical model given by the Plunger-Type with Flow (PTF) model and the Equal Volume with Flow (EVF) model. Both regular waves and irregular waves were studied for a range of mean flows through the channel and the accuracy of the theoretical wave parameters are quantitatively assessed. For regular waves, it was found that the EVF model is generally more accurate than the PTF model, especially under flow conditions. Additionally, wedges with a larger inner angle are less effective for wave generation, particularly for lower flows. For irregular waves, less errors in significant wave height were observed in the waves-against-flow conditions compared to waves-with-flow conditions, while the dominant wave frequencies were preserved in both conditions. By separating the incident spectra from that of the reflected one, a previously proposed correction for the PTF model was also addressed, validating its experimental applicability across a range of irregular spectra and flow conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".