Generalization of the Thwaites integral method for laminar boundary-layers due to moving continuous surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, attention has been given towards the development of an approximate method for the boundary-layer flows involving no pressure gradient (the flows due to moving continuous surfaces in a still fluid). The integral method devised in this study is an extension of the existing Thwaites integral method; applicable to boundary-layer flows over the stationary surfaces of finite length (which, in general, involve the pressure gradient because of the presence of external potential flow, except for the case of uniform external flow). The existing Thwaites integral method does not give an acceptable approximation for the flows over moving continuous surfaces in a quiescent fluid, involving no pressure gradient. Therefore, the extension of the existing Thwaites integral method, proposed in this study, will make it applicable to the flows due to moving continuous surfaces in a stationary fluid (involving no pressure gradient), also. With the combination of the two, the existing, and the extended Thwaites integral method, the generalized Thwaites integral method is proposed, applicable to the boundary-layer flows whether involving a pressure gradient or not.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".