MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EFFECTS OF GAS AND SOOT RADIATION ON SOOT FORMATION IN A COFLOW LAMINAR ETHYLENE DIFFUSION FLAME

2001· article· en· W2227192034 on OpenAlexaff
Hongsheng Guo, Ömer L. Gülder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSootDiffusion flameLaminar flowRadiative transferCombustionThermal radiationFlame structureMaterials scienceDiffusionHeat transferThermodynamicsChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CombustorPhysical chemistryOpticsOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computational study of soot formation in an undilute axisymmetric laminar ethylene-air coflow jet diffusion flame at atmospheric pressure was conducted using a detailed gas-phase reaction mechanism and complex thermal and transport properties. A simple two-equation soot model was employed to predict soot formation, growth, and oxidation with interactions between the soot chemistry and the gas-hase chemistry taken into account. Both the optically thin model and the discrete-ordinates method coupled with a statistical narrow-band correlated-k based wide band model for radiative properties of CO, CO2, H2O, and soot were employed in the calculation of radiation heat transfer to evaluate the adequacy of using the optically thin model. Several calculations were performed with and without radiative transfer of radiating gases and/or soot to investigate their respective effects on the computed soot field and flame structure. Radiative heat transfer by both radiating gases and soot were found to be important in this relatively heavily sooting flame studied. Results of the optically thin radiation model are in good agreement with those obtained using the wide band model except for the flame temperature near the flame tip.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207