MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157697867 · doi:10.1103/physreve.66.011104

Direct Monte Carlo simulation methods for nonreacting and reacting systems at fixed total internal energy or enthalpy

2002· article· en· W2157697867 on OpenAlexaff
William R. Smith, Martin Lı́sal

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdiabatic processEnthalpyThermodynamicsMonte Carlo methodInternal energyStatistical physicsStagnation enthalpyMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Monte Carlo computer simulation method is presented for directly performing property predictions for fluid systems at fixed total internal energy, U, or enthalpy, H, using a molecular-level system model. The method is applicable to both nonreacting and reacting systems. Potential applications are to (1) adiabatic flash (Joule-Thomson expansion) calculations for nonreacting pure fluids and mixtures at fixed (H,P), where P is the pressure; and (2) adiabatic (flame-temperature) calculations at fixed (U,V) or (H,P), where V is the system volume. The details of the method are presented. The method is compared with existing related simulation methodologies for nonreacting systems, one of which addresses the problem involving fixing portions of U or of H, and one of which solves the problem at fixed H considered here by means of an indirect approach. We illustrate the method by an adiabatic calculation involving the ammonia synthesis reaction.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207