MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249938210 · doi:10.2172/1325887

Continuum Mechanical and Computational Aspects of Material Behavior

2015· report· en· W4249938210 on OpenAlexaff
Eliot Fried

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminar flowTurbulenceMechanicsLaminar flow reactorMeteorologyFlow (mathematics)GeologyOpen-channel flowPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluid flows are typically classified as laminar or turbulent. While the glassy, regular flow of water from a slightly opened tap is laminar, the sinuous, irregular flow of water from a fully opened tap is turbulent. In a laminar flow, the velocity and other relevant fields are deterministic functions of position and time. Photos taken at different times, no matter how far removed, of steady laminar flow from a tap will be identical. In a turbulent flow, the velocity and other relevant fields manifest complex spatial and temporal fluctuations. A video of steady turbulent flow from a tap will exhibit a constantly changing pattern and many length and time scales. In nature and technology, laminar flows are more the exception than the rule. Fluvial, oceanic, pyroclastic, atmospheric, and interstellar flows are generally turbulent, as are the flows of blood through the left ventricle and air in the lungs. Flows around land, sea, and air vehicles and through pipelines, heating, cooling, and ventilation systems are generally turbulent, as are most flows involved in industrial processing, combustion, chemical reactions, and crystal growth. Over the past year, a significant portion of our research activity has focused on numerical studies of Navier-Stokes-αβ model and extensions thereof. Our results regarding these and other approaches to turbulence modeling are described below.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207