Validation of a three-dimensional vortex particle method for fluid flows
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of complex vortex dynamics and interactions studies, an algorithm based on vortex particle methods is developed while a set of validation tests and a detailed comparison with a pseudospectral code are presented. The two physical problems considered are the isolated Lamb-Oseen tube (case A) and the antiparallel tubes (Crow instability, case B). The objectives of the work are to quantify the influence of the temporal and the spatial resolutions on the solution, to evaluate the numerical diffusion, and to look at the robustness and the ability of the algorithm to handle small tubular scales at a maximum Reynolds number. Finally, for the so-called Crow instability (case B), comparisons between the vortex-in-cell algorithm at 64, 128, and 256 spatial resolutions are carried out with a spectral method, for a Reynolds number of 1500. The results contribute to a better knowledge of the stability, accuracy, and dissipative behaviour of 3D vortex methods for modelling fluid flows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it