MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003181969 · doi:10.1615/jpormedia.2020026859

HEAT ENHANCEMENT USING ALUMINUM METAL FOAM: EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL APPROACH

2020· article· en· W3003181969 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Welsford, P. Thanapathy, Ayman M. Bayomy, M. Ren, M. Ziad Saghir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Porous Media · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetal foamHeat sinkMaterials sciencePressure dropLiquid metalHeat transferComputer coolingThermalAluminiumHeat transfer enhancementElectronicsComposite materialPerformance enhancementMechanicsMechanical engineeringHeat transfer coefficientThermodynamicsThermal management of electronic devices and systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of increasing power demands and the decreasing size of computational hardware, the need for an effective cooling technique is more urgent now than ever. Despite this need, there is insufficient research on metal foams operating as liquid cooling heat sinks within electronic systems and documented cases where the results are reported and verified using both experimental and numerical analyses. Operating within the Forchheimer flow regime, the present paper assesses the effect of varying pore densities on the thermal effectiveness of metal foams as liquid cooling heat sinks for electronics. The effectiveness of the system is evaluated based on the pressure drop that occurs across the metal foam and the effective heat transfer rate. These results are then verified both numerically and experimentally. The results revealed that a sample with a linear pore density of 10 PPI is most effective when all the evaluation parameters are taken into consideration.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Porous MediaSame topicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous MediaFrench-language works237,207