MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519105270

Fuel and combustion stratification study of Partially Premixed Combustion

2016· article· en· W2519105270 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Izadi Najafabadi, Noah Van Dam, Bart Somers, Bengt Johansson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionStratification (seeds)Ignition systemHomogeneousEnvironmental scienceMechanicsChemistryThermodynamicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relatively high levels of stratification is one of the main advantages of Partially Premixed Combustion (PPC) over the Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) concept. Fuel stratification smoothens heat release and improves controllability of this kind of combustion. However, the lack of a clear definition of “fuel and combustion stratifications” is obvious in literature. Hence, it is difficult to compare stratification levels of different PPC strategies or other combustion concepts. The main objective of this study is to define the fuel and combustion stratifications based on the fuel tracer LIF and OH* chemiluminescence images, respectively. A light duty optical engine has been used to perform the measurements. Four experimental points are evaluated, with injection timings in both the homogeneous and the stratified regimes. Twodimensional Fourier transforms of fuel distribution and chemiluminescence images provide the range of spatial frequencies in these images. This method gives the opportunity to separate a specific range of frequencies related to fuel and combustion stratification. The signal energy content in this range is used to define the stratification, using an appropriate normalization procedure. The results indicate that this new definition is a promising method to compare the level of stratification between different experiments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207