MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144822821 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450810516

The Tank Drainage Problem Revisited: Do These Equations Actually Work?

2003· article· en· W2144822821 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.

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

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingLaminar flowMechanicsTurbulenceDrainageWork (physics)Flow (mathematics)Pipe flowPipeline (software)GeologyPetroleum engineeringMathematicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The tank drainage problem with pipeline attached is studied in this work. Laminar and turbulent formulations of this unsteady‐state flow problem are derived and evaluated by experimental data. Additional literature models are also evaluated for comparison. Several experimental configurations were used including a small tank with a vertical tube, the same with various‐ sized orifices, a large tank with a horizontal pipe, and a large tank including a piping system with elbows, vertical drop and horizontal extension. Not all the models performed well under all conditions. Limitations of the models are discussed. The model derived by Loiacono and the model we derived (an exact equivalent) showed the best for both laminar and turbulent flow, predicting drainage times to better than ± 8%, on average.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.170 · 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