MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993811345 · doi:10.1115/1.3063632

An Inviscid Solution for Modeling of Tornadolike Vortices

2009· article· en· W1993811345 on OpenAlexaff
Zhuyun Xu, Horia Hangan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInviscid flowLaminar flowVortexDegree RankineBoundary layerMechanicsReynolds numberJet (fluid)PhysicsClassical mechanicsThermodynamicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An inviscid tornadolike vortex is analytically modeled using a free narrow jet solution combined with a modified Rankine vortex. An empirical and simplified solution to existing models is defined for flows similar to the ones simulated in Ward-type vortex chambers. Velocity profiles are calculated for a particular swirl ratio Sr=0.28. The model shows reasonable agreement with existing experimental measurements by Baker (1981, “Boundary Layers in Laminar Vortex Flows,” Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN) and the numerical simulation by Wilson and Rotunno (1986, “Numerical Simulation of a Laminar End-Wall Vortex and Boundary Layer,” Phys. Fluids, 29(12), pp. 3993–4005).

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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