MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135103138 · doi:10.1063/5.0038854

The joint probability density function of mixture fraction, reaction progress variable, and total enthalpy in a stratified, swirl-stabilized turbulent flame

2021· article· en· W3135103138 on OpenAlexafffund
Arash Mousemi, W. Kendal Bushe

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProbability density functionConditional probability distributionJoint probability distributionStatisticsMarginal distributionStagnation enthalpyStatistical physicsGaussianEnthalpyTurbulencePhysicsMathematicsThermodynamicsRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three-condition version of the uniform conditional state combustion model makes use of the mixture fraction, progress variable, and normalized total enthalpy as conditioning variables to build a three-dimensional conditional manifold for chemistry. In order to map the solution in conditional space into the flow domain, the joint Probability Density Function (PDF) of the conditioning variables needs to be modeled. In simulations, presumed functions (i.e., β-PDF for the mixture fraction and progress variable and δ-PDF for total enthalpy) are often used for modeling the marginal PDFs. In this work, the measurements from the Cambridge/Sandia burner are employed to obtain the marginal PDFs for the conditioning variables at various points in the reacting domain. The measurements are then combined from all positions in space to form conditional PDFs of the normalized total enthalpy for various values of the other two variables. In the vicinity of the flame brush, the marginal PDF of the normalized total enthalpy resembles a bimodal Gaussian distribution; nonetheless, the conditional PDFs for this variable are nearly Gaussian distributions. The correlation coefficients between the conditioning variables are also investigated, and the assumption of their statistical independence is examined. To consider the association between the conditioning variables for modeling, the copula concept is introduced, and the performances of three different copulas are tested. Furthermore, the statistical moments of the conditioning variables are computed from the experimental data at different points and are utilized for modeling the joint PDF of the conditioning variables from two different approaches that are compared.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207