MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000258203 · doi:10.1080/13647830701330922

Predicting the ignition delay of turbulent methane jets using Conditional Source-term Estimation

2007· article· en· W2000258203 on OpenAlexaff
Ray Grout, W. Kendal Bushe, Christopher Blair

Bibliographic record

VenueCombustion Theory and Modelling · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoignition temperatureMethaneShock tubeIgnition systemCombustionMechanicsJet (fluid)Laminar flowNuclear engineeringChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsShock waveEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A predictive simulation of the autoignition process of non-premixed methane in a turbulent jet configuration was performed. Closure for the chemical source-term was obtained using Conditional Source-term Estimation with Laminar Flamelet Decomposition (CSE-LFD). The ambient oxidizer conditions – the high pressure and moderate temperatures characteristic of compression ignition engines – were chosen with the intent to validate the combustion model used under engine-relevant conditions. Validation was obtained by comparison of the predicted ignition delay to experimental results obtained from a shock-tube facility at several initial temperatures. Overall, the combination of full chemistry that has been carefully tuned to predict autoignition of premixed methane–air mixtures under similar temperature/pressure conditions with the CSE-LFD model is able to successfully predict the autoignition delay time of methane–air jets well within the scatter in the experimental data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombustion Theory and ModellingSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207