MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical and Mathematical Modelling of Steelmaking Tundish Operations: A Review of the Last Decade (1999–2009)

2010· review· en· W2077476841 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

VenueISIJ International · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundishPhysical modellingSteelmakingWork (physics)EngineeringCurrent (fluid)Mechanical engineeringManagement scienceMetallurgyMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A great number of research articles on the physical and mathematical modelling of tundish operation have been reported in the literature. Mazumdar and Guthrie1) summarized a large portion of these in a review article in ISIJ published in 1999. Because of the growing importance of tundish metallurgy and stringent demands regarding steel quality, a lot of further work has been done on tundish technology from1999 till date. This review summarizes the basics of physical modelling, mathematical modelling and the work of different researchers around the globe in the last decade i.e. 1999 to 2009. Current trends in research have been reviewed and critiqued.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.273 · 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