MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999582254 · doi:10.1115/1.4045984

Evaporation of Lubricant Films Subjected to Laminar and Turbulent Boundary Layers

2020· article· en· W2999582254 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen J. Gill, Burak Ahmet Tuna, Serhiy Yarusevych, Xianguo Li, Fanghui Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Centres of ExcellenceGeneral Motors Corporation
KeywordsTurbulenceLaminar flowReynolds numberMaterials scienceMechanicsBoundary layerParticle image velocimetryTurbulence kinetic energyMass transferDuct (anatomy)ThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work investigates experimentally the effects of grid-generated turbulence on the evaporation of thin oil films subjected to laminar, transitional, and turbulent boundary layers. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) is used to characterize flow development within a rectangular duct (20 mm × 40 mm) with a length of 1 m (∼40Dh). The inlet turbulence intensity is manipulated using wire meshes, and experiments are performed for Reynolds numbers based on the duct hydraulic diameter of 10,650, 17,750, and 35,500. Mass transfer measurements are conducted under the characterized boundary layers for oil films with initial thicknesses of 50 μm at a constant substrate temperature of 150 °C. The Reynolds number is shown to have a significant impact on the evaporation rate, whereas varying near-wall turbulence intensity is shown to have little effect for the parameters investigated in this study. This implies that mean wall shear and transport within the viscous sublayer are the predominant parameters governing the convection-limited mass transfer considered in this investigation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207