MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892235361 · doi:10.4236/jpee.2018.69003

Optimization of Temperature Drop Formula for Annular Gathering Pipeline in High Water Cut Oil Region of Central Hebei Province

2018· article· en· W2892235361 on OpenAlexaff
Haonan Cai, Lining Zhao, Xuemei Chen, Xintong Chen, Tong Guan, Jinxiu Wang, Bolin Lv, Shuaibin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Power and Energy Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrop (telecommunication)MechanicsMixing (physics)Pressure dropPipeline transportThermodynamicsPipeline (software)DiagramFlow (mathematics)InverseVolumetric flow rateHeat transferPetroleum engineeringMathematicsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to respond to the national policy of energy saving and consumption reduction, the temperature drop formula of annular pipeline should be established to optimize the water mixing temperature and water mixing flow. The traditional temperature drop formula applies the high water cut actual situation to 13.7%. On the basis of the traditional Schulhof temperature drop formula, the influence of hydraulic friction on the oil flow temperature is calculated by the calculus idea. The heat transfer coefficient of the pipeline under the complex condition is obtained by the inverse algorithm, and the water mixing flow and water temperature are simulated with MATLAB. The function surface diagram of the degree and the back station temperature. The actual error can be reduced to 4.8%, and the return station temperature can be optimized by 7 degrees.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Power and Energy EngineeringSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207