An Improved Quasi-Steady Analysis for Solving Freezing Problems in a Plate, a Cylinder and a Sphere
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Freezing processes taking place in a plate, a cylinder and a sphere are investigated by using the improved quasi-steady analysis model developed in the present study. In the improved quasi-steady analysis, an additional term is added to the temperature profile to simulate the transient effect on the temperature distribution in the solid phase. This additional term is based on the ratio of the heat flux at the phase boundary to that at the cooling surface, and physically, presents the thermal capacity effect in the frozen region. The maximum relative error of the moving phase front location obtained from the improved quasi-steady analysis is about 3% in comparison with that obtained from the exact solution of the freezing process in a plate. Since there is no exact solution available for the freezing process taking place in a cylinder or a sphere, the results obtained from the improved quasi-steady analysis are compared with results from references. The maximum relative errors of the improved quasi-steady analysis for the cylindrical and spherical cases are less than 4% while the maximum relative errors of the quasi-steady approximation are higher than 42%. It is evident that the improved quasi-steady analysis developed in the present study maintains the simplicity of the quasi-steady approximation while greatly increasing its accuracy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it