MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D Simulation of Combining Flows in 90° Rectangular Closed Conduits

2006· article· en· W2062891631 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

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Sediment Control
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical conduitReynolds numberFlow (mathematics)MechanicsHydraulic structurePipe flowComputational fluid dynamicsGeologyEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringTurbulenceMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combining flows are encountered often in environmental engineering and hydraulic engineering. Experimental data are available to assist the engineers who need the various loss coefficients associated with combining flows in closed conduits. For the combining flows in 90° rectangular conduit junctions, the Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations are applied, while using the three-dimensional k-ω model. The energy loss coefficients and the mean flow pattern are obtained and validated by experimental data. The numerical modeling is less time-consuming and less expensive to obtain the various flow parameters needed for engineering design.

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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.181 · 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