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 OpenAlexafffund
Husam Osman, Kazimierz Adamiak, G.S.P. Castle, Hua-Tzu Fan, Joseph Simmer

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
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

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 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2B: Advanced ManufacturingSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207