MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133051158 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0388

Oscillating flames: multiple-scale analysis

2009· article· en· W2133051158 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Bauwens, C. Regis Bauwens, I. Wierzba

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsOscillation (cell signaling)Constant (computer programming)Ignition systemTube (container)Scale (ratio)Speed of soundClosure (psychology)Front (military)Expansion ratioPhysicsAcousticsThermodynamicsMaterials scienceChemistryComputer scienceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A complete multiple-scale solution is constructed for the one-dimensional problem of an oscillating flame in a tube, ignited at a closed end, with the second end open. The flame front moves into the unburnt mixture at a constant burning velocity relative to the mixture ahead, and the heat release is constant. The solution is based upon the assumption that the propagation speed multiplied by the expansion ratio is small compared with the speed of sound. This approximate solution is compared with a numerical solution for the same physical model, assuming a propagation speed of arbitrary magnitude, and the results are close enough to confirm the validity of the approximate solution. Because ignition takes place at the closed end, the effect of thermal expansion is to push the column of fluid in the tube towards the open end. Acoustics set in motion by the impulsive start of the column of fluid play a crucial role in the oscillation. The analytical solution also captures the subsequent interaction between acoustics and the reaction front, the effect of which does not appear to be as significant as that of the impulsive start, however.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207