MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Far-Field Turbulent Structure of a Rectangular Surface Jet to Three-Dimensional Free and Wall Jets

2008· article· en· W2168685095 on OpenAlexaff
Soheil Gholamreza-Kashi, Robert J. Martinuzzi, R. E. Baddour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJet (fluid)MechanicsTurbulenceFree surfacePhysicsPrandtl numberBoundary layerClassical mechanicsOpticsConvection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The turbulence structure of a rectangular surface jet is compared to that of the three-dimensional free and wall jets. The surface jet turbulence quantities are mapped using laser Doppler velocimetry. In general, the turbulence structure of these three jets is found to be significantly different. For the surface jet, the free surface kinematic condition has a predominant effect on the whole structure, while for the wall jet, the influence of wall kinematic constraint is contained in the wall layer. A surface current with a higher lateral spreading rate than the submerged portion of the jet is developed, which does not exist for the wall jet because of the no-slip boundary condition. Unlike free jets, the submerged portion of the rectangular surface jet is characterized by two length scales. The Prandtl hypothesis with constant eddy viscosity provides a good estimate for the shear stresses in the lateral direction, but fails in the vertical direction, where the velocity profiles are much flatter, due to the free surface condition, than those for the free and wall jets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207