SPH with the multiple boundary tangent method
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: Simulation or modeling
- Genre
- Candidate signal: MethodsConsensus signal: Methods
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.141
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.448
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we present an improved solid boundary treatment formulation for the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. Benchmark simulations using previously reported boundary treatments can suffer from particle penetration and may produce results that numerically blow up near solid boundaries. As well, current SPH boundary approaches do not properly treat curved boundaries in complicated flow domains. These drawbacks have been remedied in a new boundary treatment method presented in this article, called the multiple boundary tangent (MBT) approach. In this article we present two important benchmark problems to validate the developed algorithm and show that the multiple boundary tangent treatment produces results that agree with known numerical and experimental solutions. The two benchmark problems chosen are the lid‐driven cavity problem, and flow over a cylinder. The SPH solutions using the MBT approach and the results from literature are in very good agreement. These solutions involved solid boundaries, but the approach presented herein should be extendable to time‐evolving, free‐surface boundaries. Copyright © 2008 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.
The record
- Venue
- International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
- Topic
- Fluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
- Field
- Engineering
- Canadian institutions
- University of Victoria
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Keywords
- TangentSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsBoundary (topology)Benchmark (surveying)Boundary value problemSingular boundary methodMathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMechanicsGeometryPhysicsBoundary element methodFinite element methodGeology
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes