MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973299417 · doi:10.1139/s04-049

Dispersion of heavy particles in an isolated pancake-like vortex

2004· article· en· W1973299417 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Aurelie Goater, Gregory A. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsVortexDispersion (optics)PhysicsFlocculationParticle (ecology)MechanicsBurgers vortexVortex tubeVorticityMaterials scienceOpticsChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to characterize the dispersion of particles (mainly heavy particles) in a quasi two-dimensional axisymmetric pancake-like vortex. The velocity field for a pancake vortex is substituted into the Maxey-Riley equation, and the resulting equations are solved numerically. Particles that are denser than the surrounding fluid always move away from the vortex center. When the flow is initially seeded with a homogeneous distribution of particles of the same size and density, the particles accumulate in the outer region of the vortex. In addition, overtaking occurs if the Stokes number is large enough. The analysis of the concentration profiles in the horizontal plane of the vortex shows that accumulation of particles takes the form of a concentration wave that grows and travels away from the vortex center. A second peak of concentration appears when overtaking occurs. These concentration peaks dramatically increase the potential for collisions between particles and the potential for flocculation. Three-dimensional simulations show that this second peak only occurs when the vortex is sufficiently thick. Key words: particle dispersion, pancake vortex, Maxey-Riley equation, concentration profiles, flocculation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207