MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059574373 · doi:10.1080/10916460701287847

Computational Fluid Dynamics Study for Flow of Natural Gas through High-pressure Supersonic Nozzles: Part 1. Real Gas Effects and Shockwave

2008· article· en· W2059574373 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

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gasIdeal gasReal gasSupersonic speedNozzleMechanicsFlow (mathematics)MethaneChoked flowPosition (finance)Compressibility factorChemistryEquation of stateThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The computational fluid dynamics technique was used to study the behavior of high-pressure natural gas in supersonic nozzles. Although many applications of gas flow produce insignificant errors when the gas is assumed ideal, our results indicate significant variation of gas properties. This article illustrates natural gas behavior when it is considered to be real and how erroneous the properties may become when the gas is assumed to be ideal. The article also presents the influences of properties related to the flow of natural gas through supersonic nozzles. Using a quite accurate equation of state model, real gas effects are studied and compared with the perfect gas case. The results show a significant variation in gas properties estimation. Location of shockwave is also analyzed. The comparison of results for two gases (methane and nitrogen) indicated that shockwave position can significantly change when the gas is considered as real rather than perfect.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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