MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011890501 · doi:10.1063/1.1613644

On the frontal collision of two round jets in water

2003· article· en· W2011890501 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid dynamics and aerodynamics studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsPhysicsCollisionLaminar flowJet (fluid)MechanicsSuperposition principleVortexToroidMomentum (technical analysis)Flow (mathematics)Classical mechanicsNuclear physicsPlasmaQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our experiment two laminar round jets collide in water forming a zero-momentum toroidal vortex and this flow is modeled theoretically. First, the linearized time dependent basic solution for the starting round jet is derived in a straightforward manner. Then a superposition of these solutions is used to model the frontal collision of two round jets. The resulting flow patterns are calculated and compared with the experiments. The comparison shows good qualitative agreement.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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