MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017858306 · doi:10.1080/13647830802632184

Effect of discreteness on heterogeneous flames: Propagation limits in regular and random particle arrays

2009· article· en· W2017858306 on OpenAlexafffundabout
François-David Tang, Andrew Higgins, Samuel Goroshin

Bibliographic record

VenueCombustion Theory and Modelling · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoagulation and Flocculation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Statistical physicsParticle (ecology)Thermodynamic limitMechanicsPhysicsMaterials scienceMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a system with discrete heat sources distributed in an inert, heat conducting medium, there exists two asymptotic regimes of flame propagation. When the flame thickness is much greater than the inter-particle spacing, the system approximates a homogeneous medium and the flame can be modeled as a continuum. In the other extreme, when the flame is very thin due to rapid reaction of particles, the heterogeneous flame can no longer be treated as a continuum since discrete effects become dominant. The effects of discreteness are characterized by a strong dependence on the spatial distribution of the sources. The present work investigates the effects of discreteness on flame propagation and demonstrates that these effects result in a propagation limit in the absence of losses. For a system of regularly spaced particles, this limit can be found analytically for one-, two-, and three-dimensional systems, although the flame exhibits a complex dynamic of bifurcations as it approaches this limit. Propagation of a flame beyond this limit is only possible through concentration fluctuations in a system with randomly distributed particles. Two-dimensional numerical simulations with randomly distributed particles show a strong dependence of the propagation limit on the size of the computational domain. A consequence of the random particle distribution is that the flammability limit can only be defined as a probabilistic outcome of the flame propagation simulations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations65
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombustion Theory and ModellingSame topicCoagulation and Flocculation StudiesFrench-language works237,207