MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110828564 · doi:10.1002/eng2.12334

Computing viscous flow along a 2D open channel using the immersed interface method

2020· article· en· W3110828564 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Patterson, Anita T. Layton

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImmersed boundary methodStokes flowClassification of discontinuitiesViscous liquidMechanicsCompressibilityOpen-channel flowBoundary value problemFlow (mathematics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Boundary (topology)Interface (matter)Channel (broadcasting)PhysicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceMathematicsBubble

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a numerical method for simulating 2D flow through a channel with deformable walls. The fluid is assumed to be incompressible and viscous. We consider the highly viscous regime, where fluid dynamics are described by the Stokes equations, and the less viscous regime described by the Navier–Stokes equations. The model is formulated as an immersed boundary problem, with the channel defined by compliant walls that are immersed in a larger computational fluid domain. The channel traverses through the computational domain, and the walls do not form a closed region. When the walls deviate from their equilibrium position, they exert singular forces on the underlying fluid. We compute the numerical solution to the model equations using the immersed interface method, which preserves sharp jumps in the solution and its derivatives. The immersed interface method typically requires a closed immersed interface, a condition that is not met by the present configuration. Thus, a contribution of the present work is the extension of the immersed interface method to immersed boundary problems with open interfaces. Numerical results indicate that this new method converges with second‐order accuracy in both space and time, and can sharply capture discontinuities in the fluid solution.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering ReportsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207