MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183246374 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-42314

An Experimental Study on Two-Phase Flow at Different Orientations

2015· article· en· W2183246374 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tobias M. Brueckner, Mohammad Azizur Rahman, Mohamed M. Awad

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 10: Petroleum Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversidade Federal do ParanáUniversidade Estadual de Campinas
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Slug flowMechanicsTwo-phase flowPhase (matter)Experimental researchExperimental dataBubbleFlow measurementOrientation (vector space)Materials sciencePhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current study, an experimental study on two-phase flow at different orientations is carried out at the Fluids Laboratory, Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN). Three different orientations are used. They are horizontal, vertical and slanted orientation respectively. The experimental unit consists of pipes that are three inches (DN 80) in diameter and are capable of producing many various regimes of gasliquid flows. The experimental unit has sensors to measure the pressure, temperature and volume flow at numerous locations. Experiments are conducted for two-phase flow (bubble and slug flow). The new experimental data can provide valuable insights on the viscous effects with many flow regimes, phase compositions and direction of flow. The results of this research provide valuable new experimental data on two-phase flow characteristics for many flow regimes that can improve the safety and efficiency of wellstream flows.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 10: Petroleum TechnologySame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207