MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135460153 · doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2021.02.003

A review: Evolution of branching T-junction geometry in terms of diameter ratio, to improve phase separation

2021· article· en· W3135460153 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Science and Technology an International Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversiti Teknologi PetronasMinistry of Higher Education, Malaysia
KeywordsAspect ratio (aeronautics)Separation (statistics)InversePhase (matter)Branching (polymer chemistry)Materials scienceMathematicsMechanicsComputer scienceGeometryPhysicsStatisticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T-junction is broadly utilized for phase separation, as it has a notable function as a conduit to distribute fluid, due to its simple design, low maintenance cost and adaptability to offshore industries. The geometrical parameters that influence phase separation make the phase re-distribution unpredictable. Even though the diameter ratio of the T-junction has a prominent effect on phase separation, it was not thoroughly and comprehensively reviewed specifically. This review article intends to fill in that gap, focusing solely on the effect of the diameter ratio on phase separation, specifically for two-phase flow in branching T-junction. Initially, the inversely proportional relation between diameter ratio and phase separation is discussed, reported first in the 1970s. Besides, a critical analysis in 1998, is reported which challenged the inverse proportionality. Unfortunately, their disagreement was not addressed for more than a decade. Lastly, two different criteria to determine the separation efficiency, state-of-the-art T-junction design and side arm modifications are summed up with conclusions. The primary contribution of this research is that it takes into account the agreement and disagreements among the researchers for inverse proportionality between phase separation and diameter ratio, including some critical findings that were not reported in the past in review articles. Some recommendations for future research in this domain are also reported.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.257 · 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