MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388912487 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2023.907

Dynamic separation on an accelerating prolate spheroid

2023· article· en· W4388912487 on OpenAlexafffund
Pengming Guo, Frieder Kaiser, David E. Rival

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsMechanicsPressure gradientAdverse pressure gradientVorticityFlow separationVortexParticle image velocimetryReynolds numberAccelerationClassical mechanicsBoundary layerTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-varying flow separation on an accelerating prolate spheroid has been studied at various angles of incidence. Instantaneous pressure and scanning stereoscopic particle image velocimetry were used to shed light on the evolution of cross-flow structures for the Reynolds number ( $Re$ ) range of $1.0\times 10^6\leq Re \leq 1.5\times 10^6$ . The movement of separation lines is examined for various model accelerations to investigate on the interplay between acceleration and flow separation. The results demonstrate that for axial accelerations, the streamwise pressure distribution in the rear part of the prolate spheroid switches from an adverse to a favourable pressure gradient. At the same time, the circumferential adverse pressure gradient present during steady motion vanishes during said accelerations. In contrast, both streamwise and circumferential adverse pressure gradients strengthen when the model is axially decelerated. These dynamic pressure distributions influence the location of the separation line, which in turn moves closer to the model meridian during accelerations while moving outwards during decelerations. The streamwise vorticity distribution and the streamwise circulation both show how the separation-line position impacts the vortex formation. A high-vorticity region near the model surface is established during acceleration. In contrast, a decelerating model leads to transport of high-vorticity fluid into the outer area of the cross-flow separation. We further assess the memory effects following the near-impulsive velocity changes. The cross-flow retains the memory of moving separation lines shortly after the acceleration. However, the separation recovers quickly to a steady state.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207