On the transition between distributed and isolated surface roughness and its effect on the stability of channel flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of whether a system of roughness elements has to be viewed either as a distributed roughness or a set of individual, hydrodynamically independent roughness elements has been considered. The answer has been given in the context of definition of hydraulic smoothness proposed by Floryan [Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 26, 305 (2007)] where a roughness system that cannot destabilize the flow is viewed as hydraulically inactive. Linear stability characteristics have been traced from the distributed to the isolated roughness limits. It has been shown that an increase of distance between roughness elements very quickly stabilizes disturbances in the form of streamwise vortices; however, roughness elements placed quite far apart are able to affect evolution of disturbances in the form of traveling waves. Transition from the distributed to the isolated roughness limit is achieved much faster in the case of roughness elements in the form of “trenches” forming depressions below the reference surface than in the case of roughness elements in the form of “ridges” protruding above the reference surface.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".