MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163497615 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450810205

Two‐Phase Bubbly Flow Structure in Large‐Diameter Vertical Pipes

2003· article· en· W2163497615 on OpenAlex
M. Shoukri, Ibrahim Hassan, Ihab Gerges

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCANDU Owners Group
KeywordsBubblePorosityMaterials scienceMechanicsTwo-phase flowVoid (composites)Flow (mathematics)Local VoidComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The two‐phase flow structure of an air‐water, bubbly, upward flow in a 20 cm diameter pipe is presented with particular emphasis on the local interfacial area concentration. The radial distribution of void fraction, bubble velocity, bubble size, bubble frequency, and interfacial area concentration were measured using a local dual‐optical probe. The experimental results showed that the saddle‐type distribution of void fraction and interfacial area concentration, which are common for bubbly flow in small diameter pipes, only appeared in the present experiments under conditions of very low area‐averaged void fraction (<ϵ> < 0.04). The values for the interfacial area concentration were higher in large diameter pipes when compared with data obtained under the same flow conditions in small pipes. The area‐averaged void fraction data were correlated using the drift‐flux model.

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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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