MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102676451 · doi:10.1063/5.0030891

Direct interception or inertial impaction? A theoretical derivation of the efficiency power law for a simple and practical definition of capture modes

2020· article· en· W3102676451 on OpenAlex
Mouad Boudina, Frédérick P. Gosselin, Stéphane Étienne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInertial frame of referenceInterceptionMechanicsPower lawCylinderLift (data mining)Boundary layerSimple (philosophy)Boundary (topology)PhysicsStatistical physicsClassical mechanicsMathematicsComputer scienceGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the capture of particles advected by flows around a fixed cylinder. We derive theoretically the power law of the capture efficiency, usually obtained from data fitting only. Simulations of particle trajectories reveal that captured particles following the power law are smaller than the boundary layer of the cylinder and experience direct interception, whereas the ones diverging from it are larger and observe inertial impaction. We show that a simple comparison between the particle size and boundary layer thickness splits accurately numerical results into their dominant capture mode. This criterion is practical in experiments and simulations and would lift the controversy on the scaling of the capture efficiency.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · 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