MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405425828 · doi:10.3390/fluids9120299

The Reynolds Number: A Journey from Its Origin to Modern Applications

2024· article· en· W4405425828 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Saldaña, Sandra Gallegos, Edelmira D. Gálvez, Jonathan Castillo, Eleazar Salinas‐Rodríguez, Eduardo Cerecedo‐Sáenz, Juan Hernández-Ávila, Alessandro Navarra, Norman Toro

Bibliographic record

VenueFluids · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Lubrication Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversidad de Antofagasta
KeywordsReynolds numberMagnetic Reynolds numberMechanicsPhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Reynolds number (Re), introduced in the late 19th century, has become a fundamental parameter in a lot of scientific fields—the main one being fluid mechanics—as it allows for the determination of flow characteristics by distinguishing between laminar and turbulent regimes, or some intermediate stage. Reynolds’ 1895 paper, which decomposed velocity into average and fluctuating components, laid the foundation for modern turbulence modeling. Since then, the concept has been applied to various fields, including external flows—the science that studies friction—as well as wear, lubrication, and heat transfer. Literature research in recent times has explored new interpretations of Re, and despite its apparent simplicity, the precise prediction of Reynolds numbers remains a computational challenge, especially under conditions such as the study of multiphase flows, non-Newtonian fluids, highly turbulent flow conditions, flows on very small scales or nanofluids, flows with complex geometries, transient or non-stationary flows, and flows of fluids with variable properties. Reynolds’ work, which encompasses both scientific and engineering contributions, continues to influence research and applications in fluid dynamics.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluidsSame topicTribology and Lubrication EngineeringFrench-language works237,207