MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182042100 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2007-0015

A REVIEW OF FORMULAE FOR AVERAGING PHYSICAL QUANTITIES (APPLICATION TO CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE RADIUS OF TUBES)

2007· review· en· W2182042100 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
I. A. Stepanov

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicField-Flow Fractionation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaperingRADIUSTube (container)MechanicsFlow (mathematics)Volume (thermodynamics)MathematicsPhysicsThermodynamicsComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for averaging physical quantities is discovered. It is shown that the traditional method of finding the average value of a physical quantity gives the wrong results when calculating the average radius of a tapering tube, the average flow velocity in the tube and the volume of liquid flow through the tapering tube. The new method of averaging gives the correct results. The new formula is applicable to many other processes, for example, for calculating the flow through tubes of arbitrary form or with time-dependent radius. At present, a neutral radius is used which leads to big discrepancies.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicField-Flow Fractionation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207