MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056878030 · doi:10.1080/01457632.2015.1003715

The Effects of Counterrotating Vortex Pair Intensity on Film-Cooling Effectiveness

2015· article· en· W2056878030 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

VenueHeat Transfer Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleMomentum (technical analysis)Intensity (physics)MechanicsVortexPhysicsFlux (metallurgy)Aspect ratio (aeronautics)Supersonic speedMaterials scienceThermodynamicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current investigation clarifies the key factor on the film cooling effectiveness, which is the fundamental of the film cooling research. Conventionally, the momentum flux ratio is thought as the most critical factor on the film cooling effectiveness, and the counterrotating vortex pair (CRVP) also has significant impact. A new scheme named the nozzle scheme has been created to separate the momentum flux ratio and control the CRVP intensity. Three configurations of the nozzle scheme and the baseline have been simulated numerically under density ratio of 2 and blowing ratios that varied from 0.5 to 2. The results demonstrate that the CRVP intensity, instead of the momentum flux ratio, is the most critical factor governing the film-cooling effectiveness, and the mainstream direction component is its main component. Therefore, its two compositions, which are the corresponding velocity gradients, naturally become the key parameters considered in the design of new film cooling geometry.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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