MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414552613 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2025.10547

A gas-dynamic model for the dynamics of galloping detonations

2025· article· en· W4414552613 on OpenAlexafffund
Matei I. Radulescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsShock (circulatory)Shock waveEuler equationsDynamics (music)Stability (learning theory)Moving shock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model for galloping detonations is conceived as a sequence of very fast re-ignitions followed by long periods of evolution with quenched reactions. Numerical simulations of the one-dimensional Euler equations are conducted in this limit. While the mean speed and structure is found in reasonable agreement with Chapman–Jouguet theory, very strong pulsations of the lead shock appear, along with a train of rear-facing N-waves. These dynamics are analysed using characteristics. A closed-form solution for the lead shock dynamics is formulated, which is found in excellent agreement with numerics. The model relies on the presence of a single time scale of the process, the pulsation period, which controls the shock dynamics via the shock change equations and establishes a shock decay with a single time constant. These long periods of shock decay with known dynamics are punctuated by energy release events, with ‘kicks’ in the shocked speed controlled by the pressure increase and resulting lead shock amplification. Model predictions are found in excellent agreement with previous numerical results of pulsating detonations far from the stability limit.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207