MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806246871 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.326

The modified Myers boundary condition for swirling flow

2018· article· en· W2806246871 on OpenAlexaff
James R. Mathews, Vianney Masson, Stéphane Moreau, Hélène Posson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsBlasius boundary layerBoundary layerNo-slip conditionBoundary layer thicknessInviscid flowBoundary (topology)External flowFlow (mathematics)Boundary value problemBoundary layer controlMechanicsDifferent types of boundary conditions in fluid dynamicsMathematical analysisPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives a modified Myers boundary condition in swirling inviscid flow, which differs from the standard Myers boundary condition by assuming a small but non-zero boundary layer thickness. The new boundary condition is derived and is shown to have the correct quadratic error behaviour with boundary layer thickness and also to agree with previous results when the swirl is set to zero. The boundary condition is initially derived for swirling flow with constant azimuthal velocity, but easily extends to radially varying swirling flow, with terms depending on the boundary layer model. The modified Myers boundary condition is then given in the time domain rather than in the frequency domain. The effect of the boundary layer profile is then considered, and shown to be small compared to the boundary layer thickness. The boundary condition is then used to analyse the eigenmodes and Green’s function in a realistic flow. Modelling the thickness of the boundary layer properly is shown to be essential in order to get accurate results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207