MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016369147 · doi:10.1002/fld.587

Evaluation of one‐ and two‐equation low‐<i>Re</i> turbulence models. Part II—Vortex‐generator jet and diffusing S‐duct flows

2003· article· en· W2016369147 on OpenAlexafffund
M. I. Yaras, Allan D. Grosvenor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsK-epsilon turbulence modelVortexReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsCurvaturePhysicsReynolds stressComputational fluid dynamicsDuct (anatomy)Turbulence modelingClassical mechanicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This second segment of the two‐part paper systematically examines several turbulence models in the context of two flows, namely a vortex flow created by an inclined jet in crossflow, and the flow field in a diffusing S‐shaped duct. The test cases are chosen on the basis of availability of high‐quality and detailed experimental data. The tested turbulence models are integrated to solid surfaces and consist of: Rodi's two‐layer k–ε model, Wilcox's k–ω model, Menter's two‐equation shear–stress‐transport model, and the one‐equation model of Spalart and Allmaras. The objective of the study is to establish the prediction accuracy of these turbulence models with respect to three‐dimensional separated flows with streamline curvature. At the same time, the study establishes the minimum spatial resolution requirements for each of these turbulence closures, and identifies the proper low‐Mach‐number preconditioning and artificial diffusion settings of a Reynolds‐averaged Navier–Stokes algorithm for optimum rate of convergence and minimum adverse impact on prediction accuracy. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207