MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109951759 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23949

Two‐phase flow‐patterns identification in oil/gas pipelines based on fractal analysis

2020· article· en· W3109951759 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jazael G. Moguel‐Castañeda, Carlos E. Rocha‐Lara, Carlos Eduardo Ramírez-Castelán, Gabriel Soto‐Cortés, Eliseo Hernández‐Martínez, Héctor Puebla

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportFractalFlow (mathematics)Fractal analysisPipeline (software)Petroleum engineeringTwo-phase flowMultiphase flowMechanicsFractal dimensionEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsMechanical engineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flow‐pattern identification in two‐phase pipelines is essential for energy reduction as well as for the selection of suitable operating conditions for effective flow transport. The flow pattern in conventional oil/gas pipelines exhibit different flow patterns due to the underlying complex interactions of transport processes at different time scales. Fractal analysis of complex time series has received significant attention in the past few years due to its ability to extract hidden useful information from underlying phenomena in the time‐series complexity. In this work, the potential of fractal analysis for flow‐pattern identification in oil/gas pipelines is investigated using voltage measurements. Experimental data from a downward‐inclined oil/gas pipeline system at different superficial velocities of gas were analyzed. Our results indicate that fractal parameters can be useful for flow‐pattern identification and to gain insights into the complex phenomena of multiphase systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207