MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527570115 · doi:10.4271/2007-01-1394

Evaluation of Automobile Fluid Ignition on Hot Surfaces

2007· article· en· W1527570115 on OpenAlexafffund
Ken Byers, William S. Epling, Fan Kit Cheuk, Mahmoud Kheireldin, Elizabeth J. Weckman

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIgnition systemAutomotive engineeringAutomotive industryComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automobile fires are a serious concern to manufacturers and consumers. However, understanding how the fires begin, in the confines of the engine compartment, is a difficult task. One known cause of fires is hot surface ignition (HSI) arising when engine fluids contact hot surfaces in the engine compartment or the exhaust train. In this study, the ignition of automotive gasoline on four hot surfaces: stainless and carbon steels from the heat shields, stainless steel from the exhaust manifold and cast iron cut from an intake manifold, was examined in a well-controlled, model study. Infra-red thermography and thermocouples were used to monitor surface temperatures prior to, during and after the fluid impacted the surface. This allowed evaluation and comparison of temperature evolution during fluid impact and the ignition event, resulting in an improved mechanistic understanding of the fluid/hot surface interaction. The base material and catalytic nature of the hot surface was shown to greatly affect the ignition temperature. As the surfaces changed due to repeated thermal cycling, the effects on ignition temperature also varied.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207