MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085419112 · doi:10.1145/1778765.1778784

Matching fluid simulation elements to surface geometry and topology

2010· article· en· W2085419112 on OpenAlexaff
Tyson Brochu, Christopher Batty, Robert Bridson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoronoi diagramPolygon meshDelaunay triangulationInterpolation (computer graphics)Surface (topology)Topology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceMesh generationGeometryGeometry processingBowyer–Watson algorithmComputational scienceAlgorithmComputer graphics (images)MathematicsFinite element methodComputer visionPhysicsMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an Eulerian liquid simulation framework based on the Voronoi diagram of a potentially unorganized collection of pressure samples. Constructing the simulation mesh in this way allows us to place samples anywhere in the computational domain; we exploit this by choosing samples that accurately capture the geometry and topology of the liquid surface. When combined with high-resolution explicit surface tracking this allows us to simulate nearly arbitrarily thin features, while eliminating noise and other artifacts that arise when there is a resolution mismatch between the simulation and the surface---and allowing a precise inclusion of surface tension based directly on and at the same resolution as the surface mesh. In addition, we present a simplified Voronoi/Delaunay mesh velocity interpolation scheme, and a direct extension of embedded free surfaces and solid boundaries to Voronoi meshes.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations77
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207