MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755906967 · doi:10.1137/16m1075028

Incompressible Réthy Flows in Two Dimensions

2017· article· en· W2755906967 on OpenAlexaff
Jianfeng Cheng, Lili Du, Wei Xiang

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersResearch Grants Council, University Grants CommitteeNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaSichuan Youth Science and Technology FoundationCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsUniquenessMathematicsNozzleObstacleWedge (geometry)CompressibilityIncompressible flowFlow (mathematics)Mathematical analysisMechanicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the mathematical theory of a two-dimensional incompressible flow with two free boundaries effusing from a semi-infinite nozzle around a given obstacle, which is named the Réthy flows. The interesting and old problem was suggested and tried by M. Réthy in 1895 for a flow around a symmetric wedge. Here, we are concerned with the well-posedness theory of the symmetric Réthy flow with more general geometric conditions to the nozzle and obstacle. Given a mass flux at the inlet of the nozzle, we established the existence of the incompressible symmetric Réthy flows, containing two free boundaries behind the obstacle. Furthermore, the location estimate, the deflection angle estimate of the Réthy flow in the far field, and the asymptotic behavior of the Réthy flow in the upstream and downstream are also obtained. Finally, some results on the uniqueness of the Réthy flow are established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Mathematical AnalysisSame topicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207