MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205212403 · doi:10.1063/5.0077323

A review of experiments on stationary bluff body wakes

2022· review· en· W4205212403 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluffPhysicsWakeMechanicsVortex sheddingFocus (optics)Flow (mathematics)Surface (topology)InflowVortexClassical mechanicsReynolds numberTurbulenceGeometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental studies dealing with the wake of isolated stationary bluff bodies are reviewed. After briefly recalling the pioneering works in this domain, the paper focuses on recent research conducted with the latest experimental methods and techniques. The review encompasses a range of topics, including the effects of bluff body geometry (non-circular cross sections and non-uniformity in spanwise direction), steady and unsteady (periodic and non-periodic) inflow conditions, surface proximity (rigid wall, confinement, and water free surface) and non-Newtonian fluids. Focus is brought to the flow physics of the wakes, especially the complex three-dimensional and oscillatory behaviors induced by the periodic vortex shedding phenomenon. The paper aims to offer a critical and systematic review of new knowledge and findings on the subject area, as well as the most frequently adopted experimental techniques. The review also helps identifying knowledge gaps in the literature that need to be addressed in future investigations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.281 · 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