Final Report for Grant DOE DE-FG02-08ER64573 (Relating to Turbulence Modeling)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turbulence enhances transport and mixing. Turbulent ocean currents can increase the encounter rate between fish larvae and their prey. Without turbulence, the fuel and air injected into the cylinder of an internal combustion engine would mix too slowly to be effective. Birds extract energy from turbulent winds to soar for great distances without flapping their wings. Turbulence can be detrimental as well. The efficiencies of vehicles, pipelines, and industrial equipment are all hindered by turbulence. Turbulence can also cause structural fatigue, generate unwanted noise, and distort the propagation of electromagnetic signals. These observations highlight the importance of turbulence research. Our ability to predict and control turbulence and, thus, to intensify or suppress its effects as circumstances warrant is contingent on our understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Turbulence is also immensely interesting from a purely scientific perspective and is a great source of fundamentally important, challenging problems for physicists, engineers, and mathematicians. Moreover, various methods and tools developed in the field have found applications in other fields, including nonlinear optics, nonlinear acoustics, pattern formation, image processing, data compression, and econophysics. It is possible, at least away from walls, to derive LES models of very high-order accuracy. However, these models also lead to correspondingly intense computational complexity for their numerical solution. Some also introduce yet more questions on the already difficult problem of specifying needed and sometimes artificial local boundary conditions for the inherently nonlocal flow averages. For these two (and other) reasons, there has been a resurgence of interest in basing simulations of turbulent flows on much simpler regularizations of the Navier–Stokes equations rather than on full models of local averages--i.e., LES models. Initially these were developed as pure theoretical tools. The influx of ideas from LES and the added constraint that the regularization be amenable to numerical simulation have breathed new perspective and thus new life into this thread of ideas.Over the past year, a significant portion of our research activity has focused on numerical studies of the Navier–Stokes-$αβ$ model and extensions thereof. Our results regarding these and other approaches to turbulence modeling are described below.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.406 | 0.144 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".