MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140998897 · doi:10.1017/s002237780300254x

Two-phase flow simulation of plasma-ignited combustion in an energetic fluid bed

2004· article· en· W2140998897 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

VenueJournal of Plasma Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellantCombustionIgnition systemPlasmaMechanicsPhysicsJet (fluid)Mixing (physics)Penetration (warfare)ThermodynamicsAerospace engineeringChemistryNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent experimental and theoretical research efforts have focused on the use of plasma to optimize and control solid propellant ignition and combustion processes in an energetic fluid bed. However, prediction of electrothermal plasmas in terms of temperature, velocity and density distributions have been difficult. We present here a two-phase flow model for flame-spreading and spatial variation in solid propellant ignition and combustion processes. An integral-numerical method is used to describe the plasma jet penetration for the early part of the combustion process. A mixing length model with an electrical enhancement factor of the burning rate is used for the major combustion cycle. The model plasma jet results agree with the gross features of those determined experimentally.

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)0.000
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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