MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1881495385 · doi:10.1115/1.4031258

Turbulent Flows Over Forward Facing Steps With Surface Roughness

2015· article· en· W1881495385 on OpenAlexafffund
Weijie Shao, Martin Agelin‐Chaab

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFreestreamReynolds numberParticle image velocimetryTurbulenceSurface roughnessMechanicsSurface finishProper orthogonal decompositionSurface (topology)GeometryMaterials scienceMathematicsOpticsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports an investigation of the effects of surface conditions of forward-facing steps (FFS) on turbulent flows. Three surface conditions including one smooth step and two rough step surfaces created using sandpapers were studied. A particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique was used to conduct velocity measurements at several locations downstream, and the statistics up to 60 step heights are reported. The step height was maintained at 6 mm, and three Reynolds numbers of Reh = 1600, 3200, and 4800, where Reh is based on the step height and freestream mean velocity, were studied. The results indicate that the reattachment length of a FFS increases with Reynolds number but decreases with increasing surface roughness. The proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) results showed the step roughness affects even the large-scale structures.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207