Collaborative framework for PIV uncertainty quantification: the experimental database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uncertainty quantification of particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements has recently become a topic of great interest as shown by the recent appearance of several different methods within the past few years. These approaches have different working principles, merits and limitations, which have been speculated upon in subsequent studies. This paper reports a unique experiment that has been performed specifically to test the efficacy of PIV uncertainty methods. The case of a rectangular jet, as previously studied by Timmins et al ( 2012 ) and Wilson and Smith ( 2013b ), is used. The novel aspect of the experiment is simultaneous velocity measurements using two different time-resolved PIV systems and a hot-wire anemometry (HWA) system. The first PIV system, called the PIV measurement system ('PIV-MS'), is intended for nominal measurements of which the uncertainty is to be evaluated. It is based on a single camera and features a dynamic velocity range ( DVR ) representative of typical PIV experiments. The second PIV system, called the 'PIV-HDR' (high dynamic range) system, features a significantly higher DVR obtained with a higher digital imaging resolution. The hot-wire is placed in close proximity to the PIV measurement domain. The three measurement systems were carefully set to simultaneously measure the flow velocity at the same time and location. The comparison between the PIV-HDR system and the HWA provides an estimate of the measurement precision of the reference velocity for evaluation of the instantaneous error in the measurement system. The discrepancy between the PIV-MS and the reference data provides the measurement error, which is later used to assess the different uncertainty quantification methods proposed in the literature. A detailed comparison of the uncertainty estimation methods based on the present datasets is presented in a second paper from Sciacchitano et al ( 2015 ). Furthermore, this database offers the potential to be used for comparison of the measurement accuracy of existing or newly developed PIV interrogation algorithms. The database is publicly available on the website www.piv.de/uncertainty .
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 | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
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".