MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110329595 · doi:10.1002/cpa.20233

Convergence proof of the velocity field for a stokes flow immersed boundary method

2007· article· en· W2110329595 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications on Pure and Applied Mathematics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvilinear coordinatesImmersed boundary methodMathematicsStokes flowConvergence (economics)Mathematical analysisVector fieldBoundary (topology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Cartesian coordinate systemSimple (philosophy)Flow (mathematics)Fluid–structure interactionApplied mathematicsGeometryFinite element methodPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The immersed boundary (IB) method is a computational framework for problems involving the interaction of a fluid and immersed elastic structures. It is characterized by the use of a uniform Cartesian mesh for the fluid, a Lagrangian curvilinear mesh on the elastic material, and discrete delta functions for communication between the two grids. We consider a simple IB problem in a two‐dimensional periodic fluid domain with a one‐dimensional force generator. We obtain error estimates for the velocity field of the IB solution for the stationary Stokes problem. We use this result to prove convergence of a simple small‐amplitude dynamic problem. We test our error estimates against computational experiments. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.273 · 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