MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412198922 · doi:10.1093/imrn/rnaf204

Poisson Kernel and Blow-Up of the Second Derivatives Near the Boundary for Stokes Equations With Navier Boundary Condition

2025· article· en· W4412198922 on OpenAlexafffund
Hui Chen, Liang Su, Tai‐Peng Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mathematics Research Notices · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNavier-Stokes equation solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsPoisson distributionMathematical analysisBoundary (topology)Poisson kernelBoundary value problemKernel (algebra)Mixed boundary conditionPure mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We derive the explicit Poisson kernel of Stokes equations in the half space with nonhomogeneous Navier boundary condition (BC) for both infinite and finite slip length. By using this kernel, for any $q>1$, we construct a finite energy solution of Stokes equations with Navier BC in the half space, with bounded velocity and velocity gradient, but having unbounded second derivatives in $L^{q}$ locally near the boundary. While the Caccioppoli type inequality of Stokes equations with Navier BC is true for the first derivatives of velocity, which is proved by us in [CPAA 2023], this example shows that the corresponding inequality for the second derivatives of the velocity is not true. Moreover, we give an alternative proof of the blow-up using a shear flow example, which is simple and is the solution of both Stokes and Navier–Stokes equations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Mathematics Research NoticesSame topicNavier-Stokes equation solutionsFrench-language works237,207