MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334726971 · doi:10.1021/ef300701z

Formation of Liquid Methane–Water Mixture during Combustion of a Laminar Methane Jet at Supercritical Pressures

2012· article· en· W2334726971 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter H. Joo, Ömer L. Gülder

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMethaneLaminar flowCombustorJet (fluid)Supercritical fluidCombustionNozzleDiffusion flameChemistryLaminar flame speedPremixed flameMaterials scienceThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the study of soot formation in laminar jet flames of methane at elevated pressures in a high-pressure combustion chamber, we have observed an anomalous occurrence at the chamber pressures of 6 MPa and higher. At pressures between 6 and 9 MPa, after the laminar methane jet flame had been stabilized on a co-flow circular nozzle-type burner, one of the following occurrences was observed: (a) the jet flame is completely extinguished without any external interference, and immediately after, a liquid material started to flow out of the fuel nozzle, and (b) the jet flame started flickering or changing its shape, and at the same time, a liquid stream started trickling out of the nozzle. This outflowing liquid influenced the jet flame by widening the flame near its base and decreasing the visible flame height. In consideration of the temperatures and the pressures involved, the liquid is believed to be a mixture of methane and water formed by the water vapor in the combustion products of the flame mixing with supercritical methane inside the nozzle.

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207