An Experimental Investigation of the Flowfield and Dust Resuspension Due to Idealized Human Walking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to address how human foot movement causes particles to be resuspended from the floor, particle flow visualization and particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were performed on a simplified model of the human walking motion; a disk moving normal to the floor. Flow visualization of particles, seeded initially on the ground, indicates that particles are resuspended by both the downward and upward motions of the walking process. On both the upstep and the downstep, particle resuspension occurs due to a high velocity wall jet, forming between the wall and the disk in general accord with the mechanism for particle resuspension put forth by Khalifa and Elhadidi (2007, “Particle Levitation Due to a Uniformly Descending Flat Object,” Aerosol Sci. Technol., 41, pp. 33–42). Large-scale ring vortex structures were formed on both the downstep and the upstep, and did not cause particle resuspension, but were extremely effective at quickly moving the already resuspended particles away from the wall. By varying the seeding of the particles, it was determined that only particles underneath and toward the outer edge of the disk are resuspended.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it