MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2373166047

Further detailed analysis about shock wave reflection outside Laval nozzle in different working states

2012· article· en· W2373166047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xinwen Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerospace Power · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMach reflectionShock waveOblique shockNozzleMach numberReflection (computer programming)Shock (circulatory)MechanicsMach waveOverall pressure ratioPhysicsOpticsThermodynamicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When ratio of environmental pressure to total pressure increases from design state to third limit condition(normal shock at the outlet of nozzle),there are different shock wave phenomena outside the Laval nozzle.According to extant theory about shock wave reflection,the working range between design condition and the third limit condition was subdivided into several sections: strong oblique shock wave condition,Mach reflection condition,regular reflection and dual solution domain.Three critical ratios of environmental pressure to total pressure were proposed and determined to replace flow-deviation angle for estimating different Laval nozzle working statuses.Varying tendency of these critical ratios of Laval nozzle in various aspect ratios were also given with a figure.The pressure ratios corresponding regular reflection,Mach reflection and strong oblique wave in a planar Laval nozzle with aspect ratio 5 were 0.0841,0.0959 and 0.2005 respectively,and then the accuracy of these values were verified with numerical simulation.

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)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerospace PowerSame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207