MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985902187 · doi:10.1080/00221680509500109

An experimental investigation of jet flow on a stepped chute

2005· article· en· W1985902187 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed K. Elkamash, Mark Loewen, N. Rajaratnam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbulenceBubbleMechanicsTurbulence kinetic energyReynolds numberIntensity (physics)PhysicsMean flowJet (fluid)Flow (mathematics)Reynolds stressMaterials scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we report on the results from an experimental study conducted to investigate the properties of the turbulent two-phase flow that occurs on a stepped chute in the jet flow regime. Simultaneous measurements of the void fraction, bubble sizes and bubble velocities were made using a fiber-optic probe. The flow was found to be fully developed by the twelfth step and as expected the head loss along the step was found to be equal to the step height. When the discharge was increased by 40% the average void fraction decreased by 8%, the depth of flow decreases by 9% and the mean velocity increased by 17%. Estimates of the turbulence intensity were computed using the mean and RMS bubble velocities. The turbulence was found to be very intense with values of the turbulence intensity varying from approximately 0.25 to 0.6. A strong negative correlation was observed between the turbulence intensity and the average bubble diameter, i.e., higher turbulence intensities produced smaller bubbles. Hinze's (J. AlChe. 1, 1955, 289) theory was used to show that Reynolds stresses are responsible for the break-up of bubbles and that the magnitudes of the observed values of the turbulence intensity were consistent with the observed bubble sizes.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic ResearchSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207