MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339440029 · doi:10.2172/1172431

Final Report for Grant DOE DE-FG02-08ER64573 (Relating to Turbulence Modeling)

2015· report· en· W2339440029 on OpenAlexaff
Eliot Fried

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceK-epsilon turbulence modelNonlinear systemK-omega turbulence modelTurbulence kinetic energyComputer scienceStatistical physicsPhysicsMechanicsAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207