MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057224238 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.141

Free-surface jet flow of a shear-thinning power-law fluid near the channel exit

2014· article· en· W2057224238 on OpenAlexaff
Roger E. Khayat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHagen–Poiseuille equationMechanicsFree surfaceJet (fluid)Reynolds numberShear thinningPhysicsLaminar flowBoundary layerOpen-channel flowNewtonian fluidLaminar sublayerMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)ViscosityThermodynamicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The jet flow of a shear-thinning power-law fluid is examined theoretically as it emerges from a channel at moderate Reynolds number. Poiseuille flow conditions are assumed to prevail far upstream from the exit. The problem is solved using the method of matched asymptotic expansions. A similarity solution is obtained in the inner layer near the free surface, with the outer layer extending to the jet centreline. An inner thin viscous sublayer is introduced to smooth out the singularity in viscosity at the free surface, allowing the inner algebraically decaying solutions to be matched smoothly with the solution near the free surface. A Newtonian jet is found to contract more than a shear-thinning jet. While both the inner-layer thickness and the free-surface height are $O(\mathit{Re}^{-1/3})$ , and grow with downstream distance, the sublayer thickness is smaller, $O(\mathit{Re}^{-(1+n)/3})$ , growing with distance for $n < 0.5$ , and decaying for $n > 0.5$ . The relaxation downstream distance for the jet is found to grow logarithmically with $\mathit{Re}$ .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207