The Influence of Gravity Gradient on the Inertialess Stratified Flow and Vortex Structure over an Obstacle in a Narrow Channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examines the influence of a varying gravity field and its interaction with density stratification. This represents a novel area in baroclinic flow analysis. The classical vortex and internal wave structures in stratified flows are shown to be significantly modified when gravity varies with height. Vortices may shift, stretch, or weaken depending on the direction and strength of gravity variation, and internal waves develop asymmetries or damping that are not present under constant gravity. We examine the influence of gravity variation on the flow of both homogeneous and density-stratified fluids in a channel with topography consisting of a Gaussian obstacle lying at the bottom of the channel. The flow is without inertia, induced by the translation of the top plate. Both the density and gravity are assumed to vary linearly with height, with the minimum density at the moving top plate. The narrow-gap approach is used to generate the flow field in terms of the pressure gradient along the top plate, which, in turn, is obtained in terms of the bottom topography and the three parameters of the problem, namely, the Froude number and the density and gravity gradients. The resulting stream function is a fifth-order polynomial in the vertical coordinate. In the absence of stratification, the flow is smooth, affected rather slightly by the variable topography, with an essentially linear drop in the pressure induced by the contraction. For a weak stratified fluid, the streamlines become distorted in the form of standing gravity waves. For a stronger stratification, separation occurs, and a pair of vortices generally appears on the two sides of the obstacle, the size of which depends strongly on the flow parameters. The influence of gravity stratification is closely coupled to that of density. We examine conditions where the coupling impacts the pressure and the velocity fields, particularly the onset of gravity waves and vortex flow. Only a mild density gradient is needed for flow separation to occur. The influence of the amplitude and width of the obstacle is also investigated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".