MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587475762 · doi:10.1177/0306419016689501

Demystification of the Gouy-Stodola theorem of thermodynamics for closed systems

2017· article· en· W2587475762 on OpenAlexaff
Rajinder Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExergySecond law of thermodynamicsThermodynamicsEntropy (arrow of time)Work (physics)MathematicsIrreversible processLaws of thermodynamicsStatistical physicsApplied mathematicsMathematical economicsCalculus (dental)Theoretical physicsNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the analysis and design of a process from a thermodynamics perspective, the Gouy-Stodola theorem of thermodynamics is very important. It provides a means to improve the efficiency of a process by quantification and minimization of the irreversibilities in the process. According to this theorem, the work lost or the exergy destroyed in a process is directly proportional to the amount of entropy generated in the process. Surprisingly, this theorem has received little attention in the engineering thermodynamics courses taught at the undergraduate level. The textbooks on thermodynamics rarely mention this theorem. The exact mathematical form of this theorem is not clear and the conditions under which this theorem is applicable are also not clearly stated in the existing literature. In this article, a complete analysis of the Gouy-Stodola theorem is presented for closed systems and its limitations are pointed out.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering EducationSame topicProcess Optimization and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207