MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041866567 · doi:10.1134/s0036024414130317

The influence of gravity levels on soot formation for the combustion of ethylene-air mixture

2014· article· en· W2041866567 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yizhe Zhang, Deqi Liu, Shuaihao Li, Yongfei Li, Chun Lou

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Science Foundation of Hubei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSootDiffusion flameCombustionBuoyancyVolume fractionPremixed flameAdiabatic flame temperatureVolume (thermodynamics)ChemistryFlame structureDiffusionPlumeLaminar flame speedAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryPhysicsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduced mechanism coupled with 2D flame code using CHEMKIN II to investigate the effect of gravity on flame structure and soot formation in diffusion flames. The results show that the gravity has a rather significant effect on flame structure and soot formation. The visible flame height and peak soot volume fraction in general increases with the gravity from 1 g decreased to 0 g . The peak flame temperature decreases with decreasing gravity level. Comparing the calculated results from 1 g to 0 g , the flame shape becomes wider, the high temperature zone becomes shorter, the mixture velocity has a sharp decrease, the soot volume fraction has a sharp increase and CO and unprovided species distribution becomes wider along radial direction. At normal and half gravity, the flame is buoyancy controlled and the axial velocity is largely independent of the coflow air velocity. At microgravity (0 g ), the flame is momentum controlled.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207