MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surface flow visualisation over forward facing steps with varying yaw angle

2014· article· en· W2110877450 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jerome Rowcroft, David Burton, H. M. Blackburn, John Sheridan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyAustralian Research CouncilMonash UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsEuler anglesWind tunnelVortexCrestFlow (mathematics)GeometryWind directionFlow visualizationOrientation (vector space)Angle of attackSurface (topology)GeologyOpticsMechanicsMaterials sciencePhysicsMeteorologyWind speedMathematicsAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Australian wind farms are located near escarpments and cliffs where flow separation occurs. An absence of literature addressing the effect of wind direction over cliffs have motivated surface shear stress visualisations on forward facing steps at yaw angles between 0° and 50°. These visualisations have been conducted in the Monash University 450 kW wind tunnel. Mean reattachment lengths were measured and shown to vary as a function of the boundary layer thickness to step height ratio and the yaw angle. Vortices shed off the crest of the step induced surface shear stresses on the top surface of the step. The orientation of these shear stresses varied linearly with the yaw angle. Three-dimensional structures of different forms were also observed. At zero yaw angle the flow converged at points along the crest. At high yaw angles distinct sections of misaligned flow were observed downstream of the reattachment line, indicating a spatial periodicity in shedding.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207