MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168843122 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2015.26

Kraichnan–Leith–Batchelor similarity theory and two-dimensional inverse cascades

2015· article· en· W2168843122 on OpenAlexaff
B. H. Burgess, R. K. Scott, Theodore G. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEnstrophyVortexInverseTurbulenceCascadeScalingMathematical physicsVorticityGeometryMathematicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the scaling properties and Kraichnan–Leith–Batchelor (KLB) theory of forced inverse cascades in generalized two-dimensional (2D) fluids ( ${\it\alpha}$ -turbulence models) simulated at resolution $8192^{2}$ . We consider ${\it\alpha}=1$ (surface quasigeostrophic flow), ${\it\alpha}=2$ (2D Euler flow) and ${\it\alpha}=3$ . The forcing scale is well resolved, a direct cascade is present and there is no large-scale dissipation. Coherent vortices spanning a range of sizes, most larger than the forcing scale, are present for both ${\it\alpha}=1$ and ${\it\alpha}=2$ . The active scalar field for ${\it\alpha}=3$ contains comparatively few and small vortices. The energy spectral slopes in the inverse cascade are steeper than the KLB prediction $-(7-{\it\alpha})/3$ in all three systems. Since we stop the simulations well before the cascades have reached the domain scale, vortex formation and spectral steepening are not due to condensation effects; nor are they caused by large-scale dissipation, which is absent. One- and two-point p.d.f.s, hyperflatness factors and structure functions indicate that the inverse cascades are intermittent and non-Gaussian over much of the inertial range for ${\it\alpha}=1$ and ${\it\alpha}=2$ , while the ${\it\alpha}=3$ inverse cascade is much closer to Gaussian and non-intermittent. For ${\it\alpha}=3$ the steep spectrum is close to that associated with enstrophy equipartition. Continuous wavelet analysis shows approximate KLB scaling $\mathscr{E}(k)\propto k^{-2}~({\it\alpha}=1)$ and $\mathscr{E}(k)\propto k^{-5/3}~({\it\alpha}=2)$ in the interstitial regions between the coherent vortices. Our results demonstrate that coherent vortex formation ( ${\it\alpha}=1$ and ${\it\alpha}=2$ ) and non-realizability ( ${\it\alpha}=3$ ) cause 2D inverse cascades to deviate from the KLB predictions, but that the flow between the vortices exhibits KLB scaling and non-intermittent statistics for ${\it\alpha}=1$ and ${\it\alpha}=2$ .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207