MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086098214 · doi:10.1063/1.2038007

Comparison of four conductive needle probe designs for determination of bubble velocity and local gas holdup

2005· article· en· W2086098214 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Munholand, Gervais Soucy

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleFraction (chemistry)Materials scienceElectrical conductorMechanicsGas bubbleSIGNAL (programming language)Noise (video)AcousticsPhysicsComposite materialChemistryChromatographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four conductive needle probe designs were compared in order to determine which probe was most effective at measuring local gas fraction holdup and bubble velocity. Test conditions were identical for all probes with global gas fraction holdup εg=0.018±0.002Lgas∕Ltotal and mean bubble velocities at 0.296±0.141m∕s. Video was used to validate the probe measurements. Fluid mechanics theory suggests the smallest probe should give the most accurate results. However, in tests the smallest probe performed poorly due to a low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The largest probe gave the best results due to its excellent SNR and appropriately spaced sensors.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207