MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964990752 · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.008

Comparing meshless local Petrov–Galerkin and artificial neural networks methods for modeling heat transfer in cisterns

2014· article· en· W1964990752 on OpenAlexaff
M. Razavi, Alireza Dehghani-Sanij, Mohammadreza Khani, Mohammad Reza Dehghani

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrov–Galerkin methodCisternArtificial neural networkGalerkin methodApplied mathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringFinite element methodStructural engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term underground cold-water cisterns had been used in old days in the hot and arid regions of Iran. These cisterns provide cold drinking water during warm seasons for local communities. In this paper, the thermal performance of an underground cold-water cistern during the withdrawal cycles in warm seasons is modeled. The cistern is located in the central region of Iran in the city of Yazd. Two approaches are used to model the heat transfer in the mentioned cistern. The first approach is meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG) method with unity test function and the second approach is artificial neural networks (ANN). For the ANN method, the multi layers perceptron (MLP) feed-forward neural network training by back propagation algorithm is used. Both methods are compared and a good agreement is observed between the MLPG and ANN results. The results show a stable thermal stratification in the cistern throughout the withdrawal cycle. The thermal stratification is linear in lower areas and exponential in upper areas. The exponential trend in the upper area is because of several factors such as: thermal exchange among the upper layers of water and the domed roof, transfer of mass and evaporation due to entry air from the wind towers.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207