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 OpenAlexaff
Edgar Matida, Wesley DeHaan, Warren H. Finlay, Carlos F. Lange

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.013
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

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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerosol Science and TechnologySame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207