MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990503727 · doi:10.1080/14685248.2011.652305

Direct numerical simulation of low Mach number turbulent wall bounded flow with favourable and adverse pressure gradients

2012· article· en· W1990503727 on OpenAlexafffund
Liang Wei, A. Pollard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Turbulence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdverse pressure gradientLaminar flowMechanicsPressure gradientPhysicsTurbulenceMach numberVorticityLaminar sublayerBoundary layerDirect numerical simulationLaw of the wallFlow separationClassical mechanicsVortexReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct numerical simulation (DNS) of turbulent isothermal-wall bounded flow subjected to favourable and adverse pressure gradient (FPG, APG) at low Mach number is investigated. The FPG/APG is obtained by imposing a concave/convex curvature on the top wall of a plane channel. The flows on the bottom and top walls are a tripped turbulent and laminar boundary layers, respectively. It is observed that the flow reaches equilibrium in the FPG region and the first and second order statistics are strongly influenced by the pressure gradients. For FPG/APG regions very near the bottom plane wall, the correlations between the streamwise pressure gradient and the spanwise vorticity flux and between the spanwise pressure gradient and the streamwise vorticity flux in the wall-normal direction are high on the wall and quickly drops to a negligible value within the viscous sublayer. Related flow physics and linkage to energy balance transport is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TurbulenceSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207