MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546423191 · doi:10.1115/1.4035116

On the History, Science, and Technology Included in the Moody Diagram

2016· article· en· W2546423191 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiagramBuckinghamDimensionless quantityFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceCalculus (dental)MathematicsMechanicsPhysicsGeometryHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a historical review of the science, both experimental and theoretical, behind the iconic Moody diagram used to avoid tedious iterations choosing pumps and pipes. The large body of historical pipe flow measurements and the choice of dimensionless groups and the Buckingham-Π theorem are also discussed. The traditional use of the Moody diagram to solve common pipe flow problem is discussed. Alternatives to the Moody diagram from the literature and novel ones presented here are shown to produce a solution without iteration for any type of pipe loss problem.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.163 · 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