MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387907365 · doi:10.3390/jmse11112036

Implications of Reynolds Averaging for Reactive Tracers in Turbulent Flows

2023· article· en· W4387907365 on OpenAlexafffund
Sierra Legare, Marek Stastna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbulenceTRACERReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsEddy diffusionDamköhler numbersSchmidt numberMechanicsReynolds numberMixing (physics)Thermal diffusivityThermodynamicsPhysicsStatistical physicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RANS simulations have been broadly used to investigate turbulence in the oceans and atmosphere. Within these environments there are a multitude of tracers undergoing reactions (e.g., phytoplankton growth, chemical reactions). The distribution of these reactive tracers is strongly influenced by turbulent mixing. With a 50 member ensemble of two-dimensional Rayleigh–Taylor-induced turbulent mixing, we show that the dynamics of a reactive tracer growing according to Fisher’s equation are poorly captured by the ensemble mean. A fluctuation-dependent sink introduced by Reynolds averaging Fisher’s equation transfers tracer concentration from the mean to the fluctuations. We compare the dynamics of the reactive tracer with those of a passive tracer. The reaction increases the reactive tracer’s concentration thereby increasing Fickian diffusion and allowing the reactive tracer to diffuse into turbulent structures that the passive tracer cannot reach. A positive feedback between turbulent mixing and fluctuation growth is identified. We show that eddy viscosity and diffusivity parameterizations fail to capture the bulk trends of the system and identify a need for negative eddy diffusivities. One must, therefore, be cautious when interpreting RANS results for reactive tracers.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207