MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012230241 · doi:10.1115/1.4046654

A Critical Review of the Physics and Modeling of Deteriorated Heat Transfer in Supercritical Fluids

2020· review· en· W3012230241 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew W. Copping, M. I. Yaras

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat transfer and supercritical fluids
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupercritical fluidBuoyancyTurbulenceHeat transferMechanicsConvective heat transferFluid dynamicsConvectionAccelerationThermodynamicsMass transferFlow (mathematics)PhysicsMaterials scienceClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modeling of deterioration of heat transfer (DHT) observed in fluid flows at supercritical pressure remains a challenge due to incomplete understanding of the underlying physics. Given the challenges involved in the experimental and computational study of this phenomenon, it is crucial that the growing collective experimental and computational data be periodically analyzed in a comparative manner through critical reviews. This paper aims to provide such a critical review. The experimental and computational evidence continues to support the postulate that streamwise acceleration of the lower density, near-wall fluid layer relative to the higher density bulk flow promotes reduced turbulent mixing and hence reduced convective heat transport. At lower mass flowrates, this may be driven by buoyancy force, whereas at higher thermal loading, the dominant driver may be the increased favorable streamwise pressure gradient prompted by the bulk flow acceleration. A discussion of these physical mechanisms and an assessment of related semi-empirical models constitute the scope of this review.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicHeat transfer and supercritical fluidsFrench-language works237,207