MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Numerical Modeling of Heat Transfer in Taylor-Couette-Poiseuille Systems

2019· article· en· W2911283853 on OpenAlexaff
Karim Hamidi, Tahar Rezoug, Sébastien Poncet

Bibliographic record

VenueDefect and diffusion forum/Diffusion and defect data, solid state data. Part A, Defect and diffusion forum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHagen–Poiseuille equationHeat transferMechanicsTaylor–Couette flowMaterials scienceCouette flowThermodynamicsPhysicsFlow (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work is to model turbulent Taylor-Couette-Poiseuille flows submitted to a temperature gradient. These flows are relevant in many industrial applications including rotating machineries and more especially for the effective cooling of electric motors. Several turbulence closures (k-ω SST, RSM and LES) are first compared in the isothermal case and validated against the reliable experimental data of Escudier and Gouldson [1]. A detailed analysis of the coherent structures within the boundary layers is proposed. The model offering the best compromise between computational cost and accuracy is then used to perform more computations in the configuration with a temperature gradient considered by Kuosa et al. [2]. In their system, the air flow enters the rotor-stator cavity radially. Correlations for the average Nusselt numbers along the rotor and stator as a function of the control parameters (rotation rate, air flow rate, Prandtl number) are provided and compared with data available in the literature [3].

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefect and diffusion forum/Diffusion and defect data, solid state data. Part A, Defect and diffusion forumSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207