On three models of magneto-hydrodynamic free-convection flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we introduce a model of the boundary-layer equations of a generalized thermofluid for an electrically conducting pourous medium in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This model is applied to each generalization, Cattaneo theory with one relaxation time, Chandrasekharaiah–Tzou theory, as well as classical Fourier law. The state space approach developed by Ezzat (Can. J. Phys. 86, 1241 (2008)), is adopted for the one-dimensional problems including heat sources. The resulting formulation is applied to a problem for the whole space with a plane distribution of heat sources. The reflection method together with the solution obtained for the whole space is applied to a semi-space problem with a plane distribution of heat sources located inside the fluid. Numerical results for the velocity, temperature, and induced-magnetic and electric field distributions are given and illustrated graphically for both problems. The comparisons are made for all functions with the results obtained in the three theories.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Theoretical physics comparing three models of magneto-hydrodynamic free-convection flow; the object is a physical model.
The work models magnetohydrodynamic flow and does not study research practice.
Mathematical physics of magneto-hydrodynamic free-convection flows; domain engineering science.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".