MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277584432

Level set methods and sloshing problems

2005· article· en· W2277584432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tian Geng

Bibliographic record

VenueSaint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlosh dynamicsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceEngineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Level set methods are powerful numerical techniques for tracking the motion of an interface. Many applications arise in such areas as fluid flow simulations, medical science, and image processing. In fluid flow simulations, tracking the interface between two fluid flow phases is often difficult. Among the mathematical models that can be used to analyze fluid flow are the shallow water equations and Navier-Stokes equations. An important class of fluid flow problems is known as sloshing problems. These problems are concerned with the sloshing of a fluid in a tank, and they arise in the automotive, aerospace, and ship-building industries. In this thesis we consider the modelling of sloshing problems using shallow water equations and Navier-Stokes equations. Whereas the shallow water equations include a function that models the fluid interface, the Navier-Stokes equations do not. In this latter case, however, one can use the level set approach to track the fluid interface. Given the fluid velocity as obtained from the Navier-Stokes equations, one can use it to evolve the interface using the level set approach. We develop a MATLAB based implementation and provide numerical results to demonstrate this approach. i Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to thank many people who made this thesis possible. I would like to gratefully acknowledge my senior supervisors, Professor Paul Muir (Saint Mary’s University) and Professor Raymond Spiteri (University of Saskatchewan). With their enthusiasm, their inspiration, and their great efforts to explain things clearly and simply, they helped to make mathematics fun for me. Throughout my graduate studies, they provided encouragement, sound advice, good teaching, and lots of good ideas. I would have been lost without them. I am also grateful to my thesis examining committee, Professor Patrick

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University)Same topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207