An Investigation of the Effect of Transparent Covers on the Performance of Cylindrical Solar Ponds
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of the transparent covers (glass, polycarbonate, and mica) on the small cylindrical solar pond performance is studied. The temperature and density distributions are measured to evaluate the performance of the covered cylindrical solar pond. The pond covers provide a significant potential for energy savings and storage by insulating upper convective zone. Thus, such transparent covers are used for reducing the thermal energy losses from the top surface of the cylindrical solar pond. The transmission, reflection, and absorption coefficients of the covers are calculated to determine the monthly solar energy contents of the solar pond. The energy efficiencies of the solar pond are found for each type of covers from November 2008 to March 2009. As a result, the highest efficiency is determined to be 17.86% for glass cover in March, while the efficiencies of polycarbonate and mica become 16.95% and 15.86%, respectively. In this regard, the glass cover appears to be the best option for the solar ponds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it