MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flow Simulation as a Support to Predict Shape of Plasma Beam Affected by the Nozzle Geometry

2020· article· en· W3106463868 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueMATEC Web of Conferences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCyclone Separators and Fluid Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleBody orificeDischarge coefficientFluentFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMaterials scienceBeam (structure)DrossMechanical engineeringGeometryComputational fluid dynamicsStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMathematicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with flow simulation of plasma beam shape affected by the different nozzle geometry. The flow simulations for different nozzles geometry were made in simulation software Ansys-Fluent. The evaluation of flow simulations was based on comparing shapes of the flow media out from the modified nozzle orifice against reference nozzle. There were investigated 8 different modification of nozzle orifice. Modified nozzle n. 7 (in the shape of a Laval nozzle) has achieved significant improvement from all simulated. There were observed 3 cores of plasma beam, which could help blow dross out from cutting gap. Investigated results serve for further research.

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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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