MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473731902 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2015.00062

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOLATED POCKETS OF HYDROGEN-AIR MIXTURES

2016· article· en· W2473731902 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Maha Manoubi, Maxime LaFlèche, Zhe Liang, Matei I. Radulescu

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsShadowgraphSchlierenBuoyancyHydrogenCombustionMechanicsPremixed flameLaminar flame speedDiffusion flameBubbleMaterials scienceFlame speedAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryThermodynamicsCombustorChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the dynamics of unconfined hydrogen–air flames and the criterion for flame propagation between neighbouring pockets of reactive gas separated by air using the soap bubble technique. The combustion events were visualized using high-speed schlieren or large-scale shadowgraph systems. It was revealed that for sufficiently lean hydrogen–air mixtures characterized by low flame speeds, buoyancy effects become important at small scales. The critical radius of hemispherical flame that will rise due to buoyancy is highly sensitive to the hydrogen concentration. The test results demonstrate that for transition of a flame between neighbouring pockets, the separation distance between the bubbles is mainly determined by the expansion ratio for near stoichiometric mixture, but it becomes much smaller for leaner mixtures because the flame kernel rises due to buoyant effects before the flame can reach the second bubble, thus the separation distance is no longer governed by the expansion ratio.

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 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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207