MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3143760819 · doi:10.3390/app11073166

A Review on the Erosion Mechanism in Cavitating Jets and Their Industrial Applications

2021· review· en· W3143760819 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

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCavitationNozzleMechanism (biology)Jet (fluid)ErosionMechanicsCavitation erosionMechanical engineeringEngineeringGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cavitating jets have been widely studied for over a century, but despite the extensive literature on this subject, the implementation of cavitating jets in many industries is still very limited due to technical challenges. The main purpose of the present paper is to provide recommendations on using the cavitating jets based on a comprehensive literature review on the erosion mechanism in these jets. Self-resonating jets are extensively discussed in the present paper due to their importance in amplifying the erosion effect of cavitating jets. The influence of different jet nozzle geometric parameters and the operating conditions of the cavitating jet flow on the erosion mechanism is also discussed. Finally, well drilling in addition to multiple other industrial applications of cavitating jets are examined.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.200 · 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