MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023446496 · doi:10.5957/jsr.2013.57.1.13

Numerical Solution of Body-Exact Problem in the Time Domain

2013· article· en· W2023446496 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

VenueJournal of Ship Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicShip Hydrodynamics and Maneuverability
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree surfaceHullBody surfaceTrimmingGeometryMathematicsRigid bodyMathematical analysisSurface (topology)Exact solutions in general relativityTime domainMechanicsDomain (mathematical analysis)Classical mechanicsPhysicsGeologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motions of a floating body in waves are computed in the time domain by solving the body-exact problem with the panel-free method and exact geometry. In the present study, the body boundary condition is imposed on the instantaneous wetted surface exactly at each time step. The free surface boundary is assumed linear so that the time-domain Green function can be applied. The body geometry is represented by NonUniform Rational B-Spline surfaces. At each time step, the instantaneous wetted surface is obtained by trimming the entire body surface. With the panel-free method, the body-exact problems are solved without involving repanelization of the wetted hull surface at each time step. Validation studies have been carried out for a submerged sphere, a flared body, and a Wigley hull. The hydrodynamic forces on the submerged sphere undergoing large-amplitude motion were computed and compared with analytical solutions. For the flared body oscillating in a free surface and the Wigley hull in waves, numerical results were compared with experimental data and solutions by other numerical methods.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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