MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915030936 · doi:10.5006/2864

Parametric Wall Shear Stress Characterization of the Rotating Cage Test Method

2019· article· en· W2915030936 on OpenAlexaff
Allan Runstedtler, Jinxing Huang, Patrick Boisvert, Nicholas A. Senior

Bibliographic record

VenueCORROSION · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCageCorrosionMaterials scienceParametric statisticsCarbon steelShear stressShear (geology)Structural engineeringComposite materialMechanicsMetallurgyEngineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rotating cage is a standardized methodology for investigating the corrosion of metals under pipe flow conditions. Average corrosion rates are determined through mass loss, and the relatively large surface area of the specimens permits statistical analysis of localized corrosion phenomena, monitored through techniques such as laser profilometry. The shear stress of the moving fluid on the metal coupons is commonly used to relate experimental test conditions to those of flowing pipelines. This paper presents a parametric study of computational fluid dynamics simulations that investigated the dependence of the wall shear stress (both the area-weighted average and 90th percentile) on rotational velocity, fluid viscosity, and fluid density for the standardized rotating cage test apparatus. The conditions covered the full range of rotational speeds of the apparatus, over a wide range of pipeline fluids and operating temperatures. The parametric characterization of the rotating cage is presented in a single chart, like that of the Moody chart for pipe flows.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCORROSIONSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207