MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008839132 · doi:10.1017/s0022112006003260

Two-point similarity in temporally evolving plane wakes

2007· article· en· W2008839132 on OpenAlexaff
D. Ewing, William K. George, Michael M. Rogers, Robert Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)WakeScale (ratio)TurbulenceReynolds numberSimilarity solutionStatistical physicsPhysicsFlow (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)Plane (geometry)Point (geometry)Mathematical analysisMechanicsMathematicsComputer scienceGeometryBoundary layer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The governing equations for the two-point correlations of the turbulent fluctuating velocity in the temporally evolving wake were analysed to determine whether they could have equilibrium similarity solutions. It was found that these equations could have such solutions for a finite-Reynolds-number wake, where the two-point velocity correlations could be written as a product of a time-dependent scale and a function dependent only on similarity variables. It is therefore possible to collapse the two-point measures of all the scales of motions in the temporally evolving wake using a single set of similarity variables. As in an earlier single-point analysis, it was found that the governing equations for the equilibrium similarity solutions could not be reduced to a form that was independent of a growth-rate dependent parameter. Thus, there is not a single ‘universal’ solution that describes the state of the large-scale structures, so that the large-scale structures in the far field may depend on how the flow is generated. The predictions of the similarity analysis were compared to the data from two direct numerical simulations of the temporally evolving wakes examined previously. It was found that the two-point velocity spectra of these temporally evolving wakes collapsed reasonably well over the entire range of scales when they were scaled in the manner deduced from the equilibrium similarity analysis. Thus, actual flows do seem to evolve in a manner consistent with the equilibrium similarity solutions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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