A Numerical Study of Assisting and Opposing Mixed Convective Heat Transfer From a Horizontal Isothermal High Aspect Ratio Rectangular Cylinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed convective heat transfer from an isothermal cylinder with a rectangular cross-section and a relatively large height-to-width ratio has been numerically studied. The axis of the cylinder is horizontal with the longer sides of the rectangular cylinder being vertical. There is a vertical forced flow over the cylinder. The flow conditions considered are such that in general mixed forced and natural convective flow exists. Both the case where the buoyancy forces act in the same direction as the forced flow (assisting flow) and the case where they act in the opposite direction to the forced flow (opposing flow) have been considered. The flow has been assumed to be two-dimensional and the Boussinesq approximation has been adopted. Attention has been restricted to the flow of air and results have therefore been obtained for a Prandtl number of 0.74. The flow conditions considered are such that laminar or turbulent flow can exist. The main attention is this work has been directed at determining the effect of the flow parameters on the mean heat transfer rate from the cylinder and on determining the conditions under which the flow can be assumed to be forced convective and under which it can be assumed to be natural convective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".