MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538857796 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0528

Numerical simulation of heat transfer in a micro-cavity

2016· article· en· W2538857796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jamal Baliti, Mohamed Hssikou, Mohammed Alaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGas Dynamics and Kinetic Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnudsen numberStreamlines, streaklines, and pathlinesPhysicsTemperature jumpMechanicsHeat transferDimensionless quantityRarefaction (ecology)Boundary value problemAspect ratio (aeronautics)EnclosureClassical mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behaviour of rarefied monatomic gas of Maxwell particles within a rectangular enclosure is investigated, with the Navier–Stokes and Fourier field of equations with first- (NSF) and second-order boundary conditions (NSF2) of the velocity slip and temperature jump, and the regularized 13 moments approach (R13). The enclosure considered has a heated bottom with lateral walls that have specular reflection. The effect of the three dimensionless parameters characterizing the simulated problem, the cavity aspect ratio, the Knudsen number, and the temperature ratio of the hot over the cold walls, on the flow and bulk quantities is examined. For the small Knudsen numbers the flow presents one type of streamlines from the cold to hot plate in both NSF and R13 theories, while by increasing the Knudsen number the flow becomes more complex and presents hot to cold flow streamlines in the extended approach of R13. These rarefaction effects cannot be predicted by the classical continuum approach of NSF. The increase of the temperature ratio in R13 affects the hot to cold flow, which begins to vanish, while this type of streamline does not appear by decreasing the aspect 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicGas Dynamics and Kinetic TheoryFrench-language works237,207