MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096886917 · doi:10.1017/s0022112000008053

Advection–dispersion mass transport associated with a non-aqueous-phase liquid pool

2000· article· en· W2096886917 on OpenAlexaff
Marios M. Fyrillas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsHyperion Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegral equationMass transferAdvectionBoundary element methodMethod of matched asymptotic expansionsConvection–diffusion equationPhysicsBoundary value problemDispersion (optics)Perturbation (astronomy)MechanicsFredholm integral equationMathematical analysisMaterials scienceThermodynamicsMathematicsFinite element methodOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two-dimensional problem of advection–dispersion associated with a non-aqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) pool is addressed using the boundary element method. The problem is appropriately posed with an inhomogeneous boundary condition taking into consideration the presence of the pool and the impermeable layer. We derive a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind for the concentration gradient along the pool location and compute the average mass transfer coefficient numerically using the boundary-element method. Numerical results are in agreement with asymptotic analytical solutions obtained for the cases of small and large Péclet number (Pex). The asymptotic solution for small Pex, which is obtained by applying a novel perturbation technique to the integral equation, is used to de-singularize the integral equation. Results predicted by this analysis are in good agreement with experimentally determined overall mass transfer coefficients.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207