MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093962535 · doi:10.1063/1.3327886

Invited Review Article: Unsteady and pulsating pressure and temperature: A review of experimental techniques

2010· review· en· W2093962535 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

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Sampling (signal processing)Computer scienceUnsteady flowSynchronization (alternating current)MechanicsCharacterization (materials science)Field (mathematics)Current (fluid)Aerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsThermodynamicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringNanotechnologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsteady flow of liquids and gasses are important in many scientific, engineering, and biological contexts. Measurement of the characteristics of unsteady and pulsating flows is more difficult than that of static flows. Time constants of the sensors must be understood, sampling rates must satisfy basic signal processing criteria and synchronization of the measurements with the flow may be necessary. Because of development of more advanced measurement devices, there has recently been a growing interest in unsteady and pulsating flow measurements and the number of papers in this field has increased in recent years. This paper reviews the current state of the art in sensors and measurement techniques for the characterization of pressure and temperature in unsteady and pulsating flows including an analysis of the advantages and limitations of each technique.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.316 · 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