MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568587405 · doi:10.1615/rad-16.220

APPLICATION OF THE INVERSE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE PARAMETERS OF THE WEIGHTED-MULTI-POINT-SOURCE MODEL FOR TURBULENT DIFFUSION FLAMES

2016· article· en· W2568587405 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Brenner Miguel, Bárbara Schaefer, Fernando Pereira, Paulo Roberto Pagot, Francis França

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiative Heat Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverseTurbulent diffusionInverse problemDiffusionPoint sourceTurbulencePoint (geometry)Radiative transferMathematicsMechanicsPhysicsMathematical analysisThermodynamicsGeometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The weighted-multi-point-source (WMP) model uses point sources with different weights to estimate the radiative heat flux emanating from a flame. This paper applies the inverse analysis to obtain the fraction of radiated heat and the weights of the point sources to minimize the deviation between the WMP model and a set of experimental data of turbulent diffusion flames of natural gas in air. As will be shown, the inverse method can estimate and correlate those parameters, leading to more accurate results than the commonly employed linear variation in the weights.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicRadiative Heat Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207