Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the underlying mechanisms that initiate secondary flow in developing turbulent flow along a corner. This is done by theoretical examination of the total shear stress, which is the time-averaged product of instantaneous streamwise velocity U and the velocity V n normal to the interface. The study shows that lines of zero total shear stress exist in the flow region, which delineate the region of secondary flow. Therefore, the flow region is dividable and eight vortices occur in a duct flow. The theoretical and experimental results show that the division line, separating the neighboring secondary currents in a corner, is not always identical to the bisector of the corner, but deviates from the corner bisector if the aspect ratio is b/h ≠ 1. By simplifying Reynolds equation in the near-bed region, we find that theoretically a lateral variation of streamwise velocity initiates the wall-tangent flow that drives the vortex in the region bounded by zero total shear stress. A simplified method for estimating the vortex center, near-bed secondary velocity, and shape of secondary currents has been proposed, and a good agreement between the measured and predicted features is achieved.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".