MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017677553 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23768

Computational fluid dynamics modelling of hydrocarbon fires in open environments: Literature review

2020· article· en· W3017677553 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the Royal Society
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsField (mathematics)Environmental scienceComputer scienceHydrocarbonPetroleum engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hydrocarbon fuels are involved in most major fire accidents occurring in industrial facilities. Due to the need for an in‐depth understanding of the phenomena associated with hydrocarbon fires, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling has been widely employed in the field of fire risk analysis over the last decades. The aim of the present review is to provide the reader with a comprehensive compilation and discussion of the most important aspects involving CFD modelling to simulate hydrocarbon fires in open environments. The fire sizes simulated, the fuels used, the codes employed, the variables of interest measured, the simulation purposes and the results accuracy have been examined through a wide literature survey, which includes peer‐reviewed journals and congress papers dating from the 90s until now.

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.

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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.188 · 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