On the Comparison between Probability Density Function Models for CFD Applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for modelling turbulent reacting flows is based on the Reynolds‐average approach and requires a micro‐mixing model for the chemical source that appears in an unclosed form. Three different approaches are presented in this work: full PDF, finite‐mode PDF and beta PDF. The comparison was carried out in an ideal perfectly mixed batch reactor, that corresponds to the cell considered by CFD codes; competitive‐consecutive and competitive‐parallel reaction schemes were used to test model performances. The comparison showed that the disagreements between the approaches in a certain range of operative conditions are acceptable. The prediction obtained by using the Finite‐Mode PDF model and the Beta PDF model are comparable. Nevertheless the Finite‐Mode PDF model presents the main advantage of being simpler and faster.
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 imitationNot 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.
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)
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.
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