MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183108876 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10117

Computational Fluid Dynamic Solver Based on Cellular Discrete-Event Simulation for use in Biological Systems

2014· dissertation· en· W2183108876 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Van Schyndel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceSolverCellular automatonFluid dynamicsDiscrete event simulationComputational fluid dynamicsFormalism (music)Computational scienceModeling and simulationSimulationAlgorithmEngineeringProgramming languagePhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of computer simulations in biology and the medical research field has gained in popularity.These simulations are providing researchers the opportunity to better predict the behavior of biological systems before performing long and expensive physical trials.The modeling of large biological systems would benefit from a method of approximating fluid flow quickly and accurately.Currently, no analytical solution exists; instead, many different numerical methods attempt to provide accurate approximations.They are referred to as Computational Fluid Dynamic solvers (CFD).The Discrete Event System Specification (DEVS) has rarely been used for modeling the physics of fluid flow.In this thesis we show how Cell-DEVS, a derivative of the DEVS formalism that conforms to the Cellular Automata parameters, can be used to provide realistic approximations of fluid flow.The algorithms used in the CFD presented in this thesis are based on the Navier-Stokes equations for non-linear fluid flow, which are an extension to Newton'sSecond Law of motion.The goal of the Cell-DEVS based CFD model will be to accurately approximate the fluid flow with minimal computational effort.Furthermore, the design of the solver should be such that it can be easily adjusted for use in a wide range of biological systems.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207