MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082841815 · doi:10.1017/s002211200800428x

A non-homogeneous constitutive model for human blood. Part 1. Model derivation and steady flow

2008· article· en· W2082841815 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Moyers-González, Robert G. Owens, Jiannong Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsConstitutive equationNon-Newtonian fluidNewtonian fluidHomogeneousFlow (mathematics)Tube (container)Materials scienceSlippageHerschel–Bulkley fluidGeneralized Newtonian fluidViscosityThermodynamicsPhysicsShear rateFinite element methodComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The earlier constitutive model of Fang & Owens ( Biorheology , vol. 43, 2006, p. 637) and Owens ( J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech . vol. 140, 2006, p. 57) is extended in scope to include non-homogeneous flows of healthy human blood. Application is made to steady axisymmetric flow in rigid-walled tubes. The new model features stress-induced cell migration in narrow tubes and accurately predicts the Fåhraeus–Lindqvist effect whereby the apparent viscosity of healthy blood decreases as a function of tube diameter in sufficiently small vessels. That this is due to the development of a slippage layer of cell-depleted fluid near the vessel walls and a decrease in the tube haematocrit is demonstrated from the numerical results. Although clearly influential, the reduction in tube haematocrit observed in small-vessel blood flow (the so-called Fåhraeus effect) does not therefore entirely explain the Fåhraeus–Lindqvist effect.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations82
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207