MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fluid Bulk Modulus: Comparison of Low Pressure Models

2012· article· en· W2330011967 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fluid Power · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulk modulusModulusWork (physics)Compression (physics)Fluid pressureProperty (philosophy)Range (aeronautics)MathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMechanicsMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluid bulk modulus is a fluid property that has been studied extensively over the past. The numerical value of this property depends on the operating conditions, the amount of entrained air/gas, and the way compression is applied and to some extent, the mathematical form it is defined. In a companion paper, an extensive review of fluid bulk modulus was presented. From this review, it was established that many models for fluid bulk modulus in the low pressure range (below critical pressure) have been forwarded. However, many of these models are based on assumptions that have not been explicitly defined. This paper considers these models and attempts to quantify the underlying assumptions. In addition some modification to these models are proposed in order to compare their prediction in the case where air/gas in entrained, for example. The paper concludes by categorizing the models into two groups and recommending the best model that can be used for each group. Finally some problems which observed in the models are discussed and future work for solving these problems presented.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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