Influence of bubbles characteristics on the skin friction and velocity gradient on solid sphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A detailed study of the effects of individual bubbles at high gas flow‐rate has shown, that the dominant influence on skin friction over a solid sphere is the bubble volume in compared to bubble frequency. Nevertheless the bubble frequency is very important in case of low gas flow‐rate. Referring to bubbles produced by a gas distributor, statistical and spectral analyses were performed to study the influence of bubbling on exposure time and magnitude of fluctuations. Referring to a calibrated bubble train, the existence of critical frequency is demonstrated. A bubble with larger volume and a mobile, oscillatory surface generates larger velocity gradient. In the case of gas distribution, histograms of the velocity gradient for a 2 mm glass sphere creating bubble coalescence reveal the maximum exceeds 48 000 s−1 in the front zone and 2000 s−1 in the rear zone (θ = 180°). For 5 mm plastic spheres creating bubble break‐up, the maximum of the velocity gradient is only 8100 s−1 for the front part of the sphere and 2000 s−1 in the rear zone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".