MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093112857 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-37773

A Comparison of 2-D Molecular Tagging Velocimetry (MTV) and Micro Particle Image Velocimetry (µPIV) for Microscale Flows

2010· article· en· W2093112857 on OpenAlexaff
Farhan Ahmad, Mona Abdolrazaghi, David S. Nobes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle tracking velocimetryParticle image velocimetryMicroscale chemistryVelocimetryOpticsLaser scanningLaserTracking (education)PhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 2-D scanning molecular tagging velocimetry technique is presented. The described MTV technique utilizes a scanning laser system enabling two-dimensional flow velocity measurements. The laser scanning system allows the tagging of molecules seeded in the flow of any desired pattern. This array of small dot markers in the region of interest is visualized using an epi-fluorescent optical imaging system. The scanning system facilitates the convenient maneuvering of the laser beam allowing the tagging of either a single point or a pattern. The laser beam is focused onto a single point leading to a more efficient tagging process. A standard particle tracking velocimetry (PTV) approach is used to resolve the two components of the flow velocity. Results obtained show the capability of the designed system to tag a region in the centre of the field of view. The tagging laser will be moved to any desired location within the field of view to tag the desired region.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows→French-language works237,207→