Evaluations and Modifications on Reynolds Stress Model in Cyclone Simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The prediction performance of the Reynolds stress model (RSM) on the flow field in a cyclone has been validated by using particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) experimental results. The validations mainly focus on two features of the flow information with averaged and fluctuating flow fields, which can mostly reflect the turbulent flow properties in the cyclone. The comparisons between predictions and measurements show that the RSM has good performance on the averaged flow field prediction, especially on the prediction of the mean tangential velocity. However, for the fluctuating flow field, the prediction performance of RSM is rather poor. The predicted root mean square (RMS) velocities are greatly underestimated. The standard model coefficients used in RSM have to be modified to enhance its accuracy when used to predict the fluctuating structure of the strong swirling flow in the cyclone. The recommended model coefficients give much better predictions on the fluctuating flow field than the standard coefficients, without decreasing the prediction accuracy on the mean flow field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it