MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076208480 · doi:10.1115/icnmm2008-62235

Effect of Wetting on Adiabatic Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in a Microchannel

2008· article· en· W2076208480 on OpenAlexafffund
Hideo Ide, Ryuji Kimura, Kazuki Inoue, Masahiro Kawaji

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2008 6th International Conference on Nanochannels, Microchannels, and Minichannels · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Boiling Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrochannelWettingMaterials scienceTwo-phase flowSlug flowPressure dropAdiabatic processMechanicsComposite materialAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Flow (mathematics)ThermodynamicsChemistryChromatographyNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An optical measurement system and video camera were used to investigate gas-liquid two-phase flow characteristics in wetting and poorly wetting circular microchannels of 100 μm diameter. By examining the optical sensor signals from which void fraction and the lengths and velocities of gas slugs and liquid slugs were measured, the effects of wetting on the adiabatic two-phase flow characteristics of nitrogen gas and water were investigated. The data were obtained using a T-junction with the same internal diameter as the microchannel, but the T-junction itself was well wetting in both experiments. Besides the flat nose and tail of gas plugs/slugs at low gas and liquid flow rates, poorly wetting microchannel showed higher void fraction and friction pressure drop compared to the well-wetting microchannel. The poorly wetting microchannel also showed the presence of short and fast moving liquid slugs which were absent in well-wetting microchannel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2008 6th International Conference on Nanochannels, Microchannels, and MinichannelsSame topicHeat Transfer and Boiling StudiesFrench-language works237,207