MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988657747 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2005-77272

The Effect of Aspect-Ratio on the Development of the Large-Scale Structures in the Three-Dimensional Wall Jet

2005· article· en· W1988657747 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph W. Hall, Daniel Ewing

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJet (fluid)Antisymmetric relationPhysicsNozzleMechanicsAsymmetryAspect ratio (aeronautics)Scale (ratio)TurbulenceOpticsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the large-scale structures in three-dimensional wall jets exiting rectangular nozzles with aspect-ratios of 1 and 4 was investigated using simultaneous measurements of the fluctuating wall pressure across the jet. The pressure fluctuations in the jets were asymmetric and caused the fluctuating wall pressure to be poorly correlated across the jet centerline. A Proper Orthogonal Decomposition analysis indicated that both the first and second modes make similar contributions to the variance of the fluctuating pressure, and were symmetric and antisymmetric, respectively, and the interplay between these modes caused the asymmetry in the instantaneous pressure fluctuations across the jet centreline. A wavelet analysis of the instantaneously reconstructed pressure fields indicated that the fluctuations were predominantly in two frequency bands near the jet centerline, but were only contained in one band on the outer lateral edges of the jet, indicating there were two different large-scale motions present. The development of large-scale structures in the two jets initially differed in the intermediate field with the antisymmetric mode being more prominent in the square jet and the symmetric mode being more prominent in the larger aspect-ratio jet. Further downstream, the symmetric mode was more prominent in both jets.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207