MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330866919 · doi:10.1115/imece2015-50211

Comparison Between the Numerical and Experimental Deposition Patterns for an Electrostatic Rotary Bell Sprayer

2015· article· en· W2330866919 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2B: Advanced Manufacturing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDeposition (geology)SprayerMechanicsMaterials scienceComputer simulationParticle depositionNumerical analysisFlow (mathematics)Volumetric flow rateParticle (ecology)SimulationPhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsGeologyTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a full 3D numerical model using ANSYS commercial software has been created to simulate the particle deposition profile for stationary and moving flat targets, assuming multiple injections of charged poly-dispersed particles. Different injection angles along three virtual rings were assumed to form a shower injection pattern. The experimental and the numerical results of deposition thickness have been presented and compared for different injection patterns. It has been found that there are some parameters, such as the total number of injection points, the radii of the rings and the fractional mass flow rate in each injection ring, which affect the numerical results of the deposition thickness and uniformity.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.290
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