MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526908394 · doi:10.11159/htff16.136

Dynamic Stall Simulation with Direct-Forcing Immersed Boundary Method

2016· article· en· W2526908394 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nima Vaziri, Ming‐Jyh Chern, Tzyy‐Leng Horng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStall (fluid mechanics)Immersed boundary methodForcing (mathematics)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Boundary (topology)MechanicsPhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAtmospheric sciencesMathematical analysisControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To predict fluid-structure interactions accurately, a variety of computational methods have been proposed. The most common method to simulate the flow with a complicated solid boundary is to use a body-fitted technique with grids fitting and clustering along the complex boundary. The immersed boundary method is becoming popular since 1972 due to its capability to handle simulations for a moving complex boundary with lower computational cost and memory requirements than the conventional body-fitted method. This method can be categorized as a continuous forcing method in which a forcing term is added to the continuous Navier-Stokes equations before they are discretized. The direct-forcing immersed boundary method (DFIB) is one of the immersed boundary methods. This method uses a virtual forcing term determined by the difference between the interpolated velocities at the boundary points and the desired boundary velocities. The DFIB method with both virtual force and heat source is developed by

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207