MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108352392 · doi:10.5897/jmer.9000011

Calibrating the multiple orifice mathematical model using physical scale model foam at low Reynolds number

2010· article· en· W2108352392 on OpenAlex
M. Emmanuel Adigio

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds numberBody orificeMaterials scienceMechanicsRange (aeronautics)CalibrationFlow (mathematics)CeramicOrifice plateScale modelMechanical engineeringMathematicsComposite materialEngineeringTurbulencePhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, gelcast ceramic foams are being considered as potential diesel particulate filter substrates. Consequently, a mathematical model known as the Multiple Orifice Mathematical (MOM) model for the study of fluid flow and the determination of pressure gradients across the foam filters was developed and calibrated by some researchers. However, there was need to establish the model application on a wider range of pore sizes of the foam filters. Hence, this work is to establish the dynamic similarity of the physical scale model used for the calibration and the ceramic foams. Following the conceptual model employed in the development of the MOM model, generic physical scale foam models and a fluid flow rig was fabricated. The pressure drops across the generic physical model foam obtained from experiments over different ranges of low Reynolds number were graph-fitted against the MOM model to determine the kinetic correction factors. The values for the kinetic correction coefficient determined from the generic physical model at low Reynolds number is within the range obtained by other researchers in the calibration of the MOM model, which implies that the MOM model can be applied to a wide range of pore sizes found in gelcast ceramic foam filters.   Key words: Diesel particulate trap, gelcast ceramic foam, kinetic correction coefficient, generic foams, foam filters, pressure gradients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.265 · 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