MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565492491 · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/49/5/052015

Two-phase flow pattern recognition in a varying section based on void fraction and pressure measurements

2016· article· en· W2565492491 on OpenAlexafffund
F. de Kerret, Inès Benito, Cédric Béguin, Dominique Pelletier, Stéphane Étienne

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Two-phase flowMechanicsSection (typography)TurbineVoid (composites)Flow mapComputer scienceGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: In a hydroelectric turbine, the air injected during operation has an impact on the yield of the machine leading to important losses of energy. To understand those losses and be able to reduce them, a first step is to understand the pattern of the two-phase flows and describe their characteristics in the turbine. Those two-phase flows can be bubbly, intermittent, or annular, with different types of intermittent flow possible. Two-phase flow patterns are well defined in classical geometries such as cylinders with reliable descriptions available [5]. But, there is a critical lack of knowledge for flow patterns in other geometries. In our present work we take interest into a geometry that is a pipe with periodical changes of the section and realize a flow pattern map. To realize this map, we measure the pressure variations and void fraction fluctuations while changing the flow rates of water and air in our test section. We then use our physical understanding of the phenomena to analyze data and identify different flow patterns, characterize them, and build a new flow pattern map.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207