MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038102794 · doi:10.1063/1.1635649

Shock wave diffraction over wedges, cylinders, and spheres in gases, liquids, and condensed matter

2004· article· en· W2038102794 on OpenAlexaff
A. L. Gonor, J. J. Gottlieb, Irene E. Hooton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShock waveEquation of stateReflection (computer programming)PhysicsWedge (geometry)SPHERESCylinderDiffractionMechanicsShock (circulatory)Mach reflectionHard spheresClassical mechanicsOblique shockOpticsThermodynamicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of the initial diffraction of a planar shock wave moving along the front surface of a wedge, cylinder, and sphere is solved analytically for three cases when the fluid around the body is a gas, liquid, and condensed matter, and when the reflection pattern is regular shock reflection. The conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy are solved across the incident and reflected shocks at the reflection point moving along the body surface, using the equation of state p=ρRT for gases, Tait’s equation of state for liquids, and D=su+a for condensed matter. The monotonic increase in the reflected shock pressure along the front surface of cylinders and spheres during regular shock reflection in liquids and condensed matter is unexpectedly different from well-known results for gases in which the reflected pressure decreases from the stagnation point to a minimum farther along the body.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207