Neutrally buoyant particle dynamics in fluid flows: Comparison of experiments with Lagrangian stochastic models
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
We study the validity of various models for the dynamics of finite-sized particles in fluids by means of a direct comparison between theory and experimentally measured trajectories and velocities of large numbers of particles in chaotic two-dimensional flow. Our analysis indicates that finite-sized particles follow the predicted particle dynamics given by the Maxey-Riley equation, except for random correlated fluctuations that are not captured by deterministic terms in the equations of motion, such as the Basset-Boussinesq term or the lift force. We describe the fluctuations via spectral methods and we propose three different Lagrangian stochastic models to account for them. These Lagrangian models are stochastic generalizations of the Maxey-Riley equation with coefficients calibrated to the experimental data. We find that one of them is capable of describing the observed fluctuations fairly well, while it also predicts a drag coefficient in near agreement with the theoretical Stokes drag.
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