Magnetic resonance measurement of dynamics of cavitating fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalent methods used in studies of cavitation are optical and acoustical. They are sensitive to changes in optical and/or acoustical transparency and are not applicable to studies of opaque media. Magnetic resonance (MR) methods, on the other hand, can be applied to arbitrarily opaque media, providing both dynamic and molecular information. A hindrance to implementation of MR methods in cavitation research is their relatively long measurement time: they cannot compete with optics or acoustics when a researcher needs a snapshot technique to study quickly changing processes on a microsecond scale. There are also some experimental problems with compatibility of MR scanners and acoustical equipment. However, if one is interested in longer time-scale processes, MR can provide data on velocity distribution, evaluate the turbulent processes in cavitating fluid, and measure correlations between the directions of flow on a microsecond scale. In this work, we show feasibility of an application of MR to studies of dynamics of cavitating fluid, with measurements of spatially resolved velocity spectra and other above-mentioned parameters.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".