MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885053475 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2018-0173

On both MHD and slip effect in micropolar hybrid nanofluid past a circular cylinder under stagnation point region

2018· article· en· W2885053475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Nadeem, Nadeem Abbas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanofluidMagnetohydrodynamic driveMechanicsPhysicsMagnetohydrodynamicsCylinderStagnation pointStagnation temperatureHeat transferNonlinear systemSlip (aerodynamics)Classical mechanicsShooting methodThermodynamicsBoundary value problemMagnetic fieldGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical model of the micropolar hybrid nanofluid flow with magnetohydrodynamic and thermal slip effects is considered. The flow of three-dimensional stagnation point of micropolar hybrid nanofluid past a circular cylinder is also taken into account. The flow model is controlled through partial differential equations. These equations are highly nonlinear in character and reduce to ordinary differential equations through applying the suitable similarity transformation. The reduced system is solved numerically using the shooting technique. The mutual effects are presented using graphs while comparative numerical results are presented in the tables. The diverse physical parts of the issue have been talked about. This study aims to investigate the solid nano-sized particle on the surface of a circular cylinder having sinusoidal variation. These nanosized particles are used to analyze the heat transfer improvement of micropolar hybrid nanofluid as compared to micropolar nanofluid.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations92
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207