MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319662722 · doi:10.1137/22m1523340

Improbability of Collisions of Point-Vortices in Bounded Planar Domains

2023· article· en· W4319662722 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

VenueSIAM Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounded functionVortexMathematicsDomain (mathematical analysis)Boundary (topology)PlanarLebesgue measureLebesgue integrationMathematical analysisMeasure (data warehouse)Bounded variationFunction (biology)Pure mathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we prove that in bounded planar domains with $C^{2,\alpha}$ boundary, for almost every initial condition in the sense of the Lebesgue measure, the point-vortex system has a global solution, meaning that there is no collision between two point-vortices or with the boundary. This extends the work previously done in [C. Marchioro and M. Pulvirenti, Vortex Methods in Two-Dimensional Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1984] for the disk. The proof requires the construction of a regularized dynamics that approximates the real dynamics and some strong inequalities for the Green's function of the domain. The establishment of some useful estimates is discussed and the details of the proof are given in the original article [M. Donati, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 54 (2022), pp. 79--113].

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 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 score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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