Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address the question of constructing simple inviscid vortex models that optimally approximate realistic flows as solutions of an inverse problem. Assuming the model to be incompressible, inviscid and stationary in the frame of reference moving with the vortex, the ‘structure’ of the vortex is uniquely characterized by the functional relation between the streamfunction and vorticity. It is demonstrated how the inverse problem of reconstructing this functional relation from data can be framed as an optimization problem which can be efficiently solved using variational techniques. In contrast to earlier studies, the vorticity function defining the streamfunction–vorticity relation is reconstructed in the continuous setting subject to a minimum number of assumptions. To focus attention, we consider flows in three-dimensional axisymmetric geometry with vortex rings. To validate our approach, a test case involving Hill's vortex is presented in which a very good reconstruction is obtained. In the second example, we construct an optimal inviscid vortex model for a realistic flow in which a more accurate vorticity function is obtained than produced through an empirical fit. When compared with available theoretical vortex-ring models, our approach has the advantage of offering a good representation of both the vortex structure and its integral characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".