MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025335335 · doi:10.1080/02786820300932

Simulation of Particle Deposition in an Idealized Mouth with Different Small Diameter Inlets

2003· article· en· W2025335335 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAerosol Science and Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulenceMechanicsDeposition (geology)Reynolds numberLagrangian particle trackingLarge eddy simulationParticle depositionParticle (ecology)InletTwo-phase flowFlow (mathematics)Stokes numberPhysicsParticle sizeMaterials scienceGeometryChemistryMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The deposition of monodisperse particles (1.0-12.5 w m diameter) in an idealized mouth geometry has been studied numerically for three different inlet diameters (3.0, 5.0, and 8.0 mm). The continuous phase flow is solved using a RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes) k m y turbulence model at an inhalation flow rate of 16.3, 21.7, and 32.2 L/min. The particulate phase is simulated using a random-walk/Lagrangian stochastic eddy-interaction model (EIM). When optimized near-wall corrections are included in the EIM, the particle deposition results in the idealized mouth geometry are in relatively good agreement with measured data obtained in separate experiments. Without the near-wall corrections in the EIM, poor agreement with experiment is seen.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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