MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023717041 · doi:10.1108/09615530210422983

Analysis of à‐posteriori error indicator in viscous flows

2002· article· en· W2023717041 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Wu, I. G. Currie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat &amp Fluid Flow · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorMathematicsCurvatureAccelerationFlow (mathematics)Classification of discontinuitiesA priori and a posterioriMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsGeometryClassical mechanicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An à‐posteriori error indicator for solving viscous incompressible flow problems is analyzed in this paper. The indicator named “velocity angle error estimator” is based on the spatial derivative of velocity direction fields and it can detect local flow features, such as vortices and separation, and resolve flow details precisely. The refinement indicator corresponds to the antisymmetric part of the deformation‐rate‐tensor, and it is sensitive to the second derivative of the velocity angle field. Rationality discussions reveal that the à‐posteriori error indicator is a curvature error indicator, and its value reflects the accuracy of streamline curves. It is also found that the velocity angle error indicator contains the nonlinear convective term of the Navier–Stokes equations, and it identifies and computes the direction difference when the convective acceleration direction and the flow velocity direction have a disparity. Numerical simulation is presented to illustrate the use of the velocity angle error indicator.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat &amp Fluid FlowSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207