MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164860794 · doi:10.11159/ffhmt21.131

Bayesian Data Characterization and State Prediction for a Large EddyTurbulent Flow Simulation: A Revisitation

2021· article· en· W3164860794 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas V. Scott, J.M. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceComputer scienceLarge eddy simulationBayesian probabilityData miningArtificial intelligenceMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental engineering remote sensing platforms using hyperspectral imagery and other multidimensional modalities are often responsible for monitoring coastal regions in order to safeguard national waters. This objective requires determining sub-surface turbulent structure from surface water flow spatial measurements for state assessment and decisionmaking. The inability of remote sensing platforms to penetrate the water column at depth because of turbulence-induced sediment-concentration modulation necessitates using models that dynamically link surface and sub-surface flow structure. Large eddy simulations (LES) are a useful proxy for the analysis of hyperspectral imagery due to the tri-dimensional structure of both information carrying modalities. Bayesian statistical models are used to revisit the analysis of a large-eddy simulated three-dimensional turbulent shear flow The purpose is the exploration of the feasibility of creating data characterization and state prediction system models for sub-surface vorticity and stress, and surface root mean square (rms) velocity and rms sediment concentration which could then be utilized in the analysis of environmental hyperspectral imagery.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass TransferSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207