Modeling of Oxidation-Driven Soot Aggregate Fragmentation in a Laminar Coflow Diffusion Flame
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
In this study, three different oxidation-driven soot aggregate fragmentation models with 1:1, 2:1, and 10:1 fragmentation patterns are developed and implemented into a laminar coflow ethylene/air diffusion flame, together with a pyrene-based soot model and a sectional aerosol dynamics model. It is found that the average degree of particle aggregation (n p ) in the soot oxidation region is not correctly predicted if oxidation-driven aggregate fragmentation is neglected; whereas the incorporation of aggregate fragmentation significantly improves the n p prediction in the soot oxidation region. Similar results are obtained using the 1:1 and 2:1 fragmentation patterns. However, as the pattern ratio increases to 10:1, appreciable difference in the predicted n p is observed. As the pattern ratio becomes larger, the fragmentation effect diminishes and the predicted n p approaches that of the original model neglecting fragmentation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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