Finite-time blowup for a Navier–Stokes modelequation for the self-amplification of strain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a model equation for the Navier-Stokes strain equation which has the same identity for enstrophy growth and a number of the same regularity criteria as the full Navier-Stokes strain equation, and is also an evolution equation on the same constraint space.We prove finite-time blowup for this model equation, which shows that the identity for enstrophy growth and the strain constraint space are not sufficient on their own to guarantee global regularity for Navier-Stokes.The mechanism for the finite-time blowup of this model equation is the self-amplification of strain, which is consistent with recent research suggesting that strain self-amplification, not vortex stretching, is the main mechanism behind the turbulent energy cascade.Because the strain self-amplification model equation is obtained by dropping certain terms from the full Navier-Stokes strain equation, we will also prove a conditional blowup result for the full Navier-Stokes equation involving a perturbative condition on the terms neglected in the model equation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".