MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019980926 · doi:10.2514/1.t5894

Apparent Entropy Production Difference for Error Characterization in Numerical Heat Transfer

2020· article· en· W3019980926 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter U. Ogban, G.F. Naterer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsEntropy productionDiscretizationEntropy (arrow of time)Heat transferControl volumeMathematicsComputationApplied mathematicsSecond law of thermodynamicsMaximum entropy probability distributionThermodynamicsMathematical analysisPhysicsPrinciple of maximum entropyAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An entropy-based error indicator is presented to assess the solution accuracy of fluid flow simulations with heat transfer using the second law of thermodynamics. This paper presents a new approach for the characterization of numerical error using a parameter called an “apparent entropy production difference.” A control-volume-based finite-element method is used to discretize and solve the governing equations and the second law. The procedure involves the computation and comparison of local entropy production rates obtained from two forms of the discretized second law: transport and positive-definite forms of the entropy generation. The computed local entropy generation rates from both methods are compared and related to expected numerical errors from benchmark solutions. The results of the numerical studies indicate that there is a relationship between the solution error in the computed scalar variables and the apparent entropy production difference.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thermophysics and Heat TransferSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207