MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126860818 · doi:10.1142/s0129183108012571

MULTI-RELAXATION TIME LATTICE BOLTZMANN MODEL FOR MULTIPHASE FLOWS

2008· article· en· W2126860818 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Kuzmin, A. A. Mohamad, Sauro Succi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics C · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersChapman UniversityUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsLattice Boltzmann methodsStatistical physicsRelaxation (psychology)IsotropyCollisionMechanicsPhysicsStability (learning theory)Kinetic energyOperator (biology)Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook operatorComputer scienceClassical mechanicsHPP modelChemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-relaxation time (MRT) for Lattice Boltzmann method is gaining renewed attention among researchers in the field. The advantage of such formulation over the widely popular single-time relaxation version, is twofold: better numerical stability and wider span of physical applications, extending to non-isotropic flows. In this work, the numerical advantages of the MRT model versus single-relaxation time (BGK) operator are quantitatively assessed through direct numerical simulations of droplet formation and capillary wave propagation on interphase boundaries. The results show that by proper tuning of the collision operator, and particularly of the higher-order kinetic modes (ghosts), appreciable improvements in stability limits, of the order of 20%, and viscosity limits, of the order of 80%, can be achieved. Moreover, a theoretical analysis accounting for the reasons behind such stability improvement, is also presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics CSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207