MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148723295 · doi:10.1080/10618562.2012.693605

A simple technique for the visualisation of eddy kinematics in turbulent flows

2012· article· en· W2148723295 on OpenAlexafffund
Geoffrey Lee, Carlo Scalo, Ugo Piomelli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of computational fluid dynamics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsTurbulenceSensitivity (control systems)AdvectionSmoothnessFlow (mathematics)KinematicsVisualizationReynolds numberMathematicsWeightingComputer scienceAlgorithmPhysicsMechanicsMathematical analysisGeometryArtificial intelligenceClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed and tested a simple technique to predict, for flow visualisation purposes only, the evolution of coherent structures in between two given realisations of a turbulent flow. Classic coherent-structure eduction methods are adopted, such as the Q-criterion, pressure fluctuations and contours of velocity fluctuations. The kinematics of the evolving structures are reconstructed by means of an advection-based reconstruction technique and captured in a movie. The resulting quality of the animations has been assessed via the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM). The sensitivity to increasing spacing in time of the available flow realisations has been tested and several improvements implemented. The abrupt transition from reconstructed frames of the animation to the available realisations results in a noticeable lack of smoothness. The replacement of the available realisations with a similar advection-based average increases the perceived smoothness of the movies. This is confirmed by the reduced total variation of the SSIM index. The residual minor periodic variations of accuracy have been reduced by introducing a stochastic weighting function. The sensitivity of the results to changes in Reynolds number, resolution and structure representation methods has been tested.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of computational fluid dynamicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207