Soft Computing Approaches for Thermal Conductivity Estimation of CNT/Water Nanofluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the auspicious nanomaterials which has exceptionally enticed researchers is carbon nanotubes (CNTs) as the result of their excellent thermal properties.In this investigation, an experiment was carried out on three kinds of CNTs-nanofluids with various CNTs added to de-ionized water to compared and analyze their thermal conductivity properties.The main purpose of this study was to introduce a combination of experimental and modelling approaches to forecast the amount of thermal conductivity using four different neural networks.Between MLP-ANN, ANFIS, LSSVM, and RBF-ANN Methods, it was found that the LSSVM produced better results with the lowest deviation factor and reflected the most accurate responses between the proposed models.the regression diagram of experimental and estimated values shows an R2 coefficient of 0.9806 and 0.9579 for training and testing sections of the ANFIS method in part a, and in the b, c and d parts of the diagram, coefficients of determination were 0.9893& 0.9967 and 0.9974 & 0.9992 and 0.9996& 0.9989 for training and testing part of MLP-ANN, RBF-ANN and LSSVM models.Also, the effect of different parameters was investigated using a sensitivity analysis method which demonstrates that the temperature is the most affecting parameter on the thermal conductivity with a relevancy factor of 0.66866.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".