MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021598733 · doi:10.1115/gt2012-70038

On the Prediction of Pollutant Emission Indices From Gas Turbine Combustion Chambers

2012· article· en· W2021598733 on OpenAlexaff
Marc LaViolette, Ruben E. Perez

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Combustion, Fuels and Emissions, Parts A and B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionNOxEmpirical modellingRange (aeronautics)Gas turbinesJet engineEnvironmental sciencePollutantExperimental dataCombustion chamberComputer scienceEngineeringSimulationMathematicsAerospace engineeringStatisticsMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper surveys existing emissions models used in the prediction of NOx. The prediction of jet engine emission indices from fundamental principles have proven to be difficult due to the complex physical and chemical interactions occurring within their combustion chambers. Present day prediction of engine emission indices during engine development relies on published models, which are based on limited sets of data measured on older combustion chambers where minimizing pollutant emissions was not a major design criteria. Such empirical and semi-empirical models can, however, provide upper emission limits for new engine designs. A database comprising a wider range of experimental data (over 2000 measured points) taken from the literature was used to test the models. Advanced techniques were applied to optimize the coefficients of proportionality of governing equations of the best models in the literature. Most models tend to consistently over or under predict the measured values. In most cases, even though the standard deviation of the predicted values was not reduced, the correlation error was improved by removing this bias.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Combustion, Fuels and Emissions, Parts A and BSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207