Multiple-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann simulation of natural convection with multiple heat sources in a rectangular cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural convection and heat transfer in a square cavity with multiple heat sources was investigated through a multiple-relaxation-time (MRT) collision model and lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) in the current work. The MRT-LBM model was verified by a former experiment and numerical findings with different Ra numbers from 103 to 105, which proved the MRT-LBM model is effective to handle the flow and transfer. The heat transfer that developed inside the cavity was analyzed under different width, height, and lateral offset of heat source in this paper. Moreover, the change of spacing between two symmetrically distributed heat sources was discussed. The results showed that the heat exchange efficiency was augmented by increasing width, height, and spacing of the heater, but it was reduced by increasing lateral offset. Specifically, the Nusselt number of the upper wall decreased by increasing height of heat source, and the left and right walls showed better heat exchange efficiency by increasing height. Additionally, the lateral position had a notable influence on the left wall surface of the heat source, and the optimum heat exchange efficiency of the heat source’s left wall existed in the condition of small lateral offset.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".