Heat Transfer Coefficient Prediction of a Porous Material by Implementing a Machine Learning Model on a CFD Data Set
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During many years, the search for new and improved materials has been an arduous task. It has mainly focused on experimentation and in recent years on computer aided techniques (i.e. numerical simulation). These two approaches defined the way material science works. Yet, both techniques have shown cost-efficiency disadvantages. Optimization algorithms, like the ones used in machine learning, have proven to be an alternative tool when dealing with lots of data and finding a particular solution. Even though the use of machine learning is a well stablished technique in other fields, its application in material science is relatively new. Material Informatics provides a new approach to analyse materials such as porous metals by employing previous data sets. This paper studies a new technique to predict the heat transfer coefficient of an open-cell porous structure while running water passes through the material. A CFD data set was employed by a Machine Learning technique in order to establish a relationship between the input parameters (porosity, pore size, pore distribution and flow rate) and the heat transfer coefficient of the sample. The results obtained from the analyses were compared with previous findings, concluding that by utilising a Machine Leaning technique is possible to obtain a more accurate and much better fit model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it