Validation of the S‐CLSVOF method with the density‐scaled balanced continuum surface force model in multiphase systems coupled with thermocapillary flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Three numerical methods, namely, volume of fluid (VOF), simple coupled volume of fluid with level set (S‐CLSVOF), and S‐CLSVOF with the density‐scaled balanced continuum surface force (CSF) model, have been incorporated into OpenFOAM source code and were validated for their accuracy for three cases: (i) an isothermal static case, (ii) isothermal dynamic cases, and (iii) non‐isothermal dynamic cases with thermocapillary flow including dynamic interface deformation. Results have shown that the S‐CLSVOF method gives accurate results in the test cases with mild computation conditions, and the S‐CLSVOF technique with the density‐scaled balanced CSF model leads to accurate results in the cases of large interface deformations and large density and viscosity ratios. These show that these high accuracy methods would be appropriate to obtain accurate predictions in multiphase flow systems with thermocapillary flows. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".