MODAL ANALYSIS-BASED CLASSIFICATION OF LIQUID JETS IN CROSSFLOW
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breakup of liquid jets in crossflow contain unique embedded patterns based on the type of the pertained flow regime. Recognition of these patterns and correlating them to the underlying flow schemes is a possible but challenging task due to their complex nature. In this research, we have utilized unsupervised reduced-order models to create a set of modes that could be employed to analyze the attributes of different snapshots. They may be imported to feature-based supervised classifier to diagnose multiple flow regimes. These models include proper orthogonal decomposition, principal component analysis, and dynamic mode decomposition (DMD). Snapshots are being extracted by high-speed imaging of the flow field of 14 different cases at various categories. These images are then stacked into a high-dimensional matrix as the training set for the support vector machine and random forest (RF) classifiers to learn. Then, the generated classifiers in the previous step are used to predict which category belongs to every dataset of the six newly imported cases. Afterward, the accuracy level of different permutations of reduced-order models and machine learning algorithms is calculated. Results indicate that using dynamic modes of DMD in partnership with the RF algorithm outperforms every other model with the highest accuracy rate of 95%. Finally, a decision-maker application that classifies the datasets based on the first three models with the highest accuracy levels is introduced to provide a user-friendly environment for data classification at all other potential conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it