Reynolds-number scaling of vortex pinch-off on low-aspect-ratio propulsors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impulsively started, low-aspect-ratio elliptical flat plates have been investigated experimentally to understand the vortex pinch-off dynamics at transitional and fully turbulent Reynolds numbers. The range of Reynolds numbers investigated is representative of those observed in animals that employ rowing and paddling modes of drag-based propulsion and manoeuvring. Elliptical flat plates with five aspect ratios ranging from one to two have been considered, as abstractions of propulsor planforms found in nature. It has been shown that Reynolds-number scaling is primarily determined by plate aspect ratio in terms of both drag forces and vortex pinch-off. Due to vortex-ring growth time scales that are longer than those associated with the development of flow instabilities, the scaling of drag is Reynolds-number-dependent for the aspect-ratio-one flat plate. With increasing aspect ratio, the Reynolds-number dependency decreases as a result of the shorter growth time scales associated with high-aspect-ratio elliptical vortex rings. Large drag peaks are observed during early-stage vortex growth for the higher-aspect-ratio flat plates. The collapse of these peaks with Reynolds number provides insight into the evolutionary convergence process of propulsor planforms used in drag-based swimming modes over diverse scales towards aspect ratios greater than one.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".