MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153229137 · doi:10.1007/s10652-021-09790-w

Cooling tower plume abatement and plume modeling: a review

2021· review· en· W3153229137 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuo Li, M. R. Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Fluid Mechanics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsPlumeCooling towerMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceTurbulenceAtmospheric sciencesGeologyAerospace engineeringEngineeringWater coolingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Visible plumes above wet cooling towers are of great concern due to the associated aesthetic and environmental impacts. The parallel path wet/dry cooling tower is one of the most commonly used approaches for plume abatement, however, the associated capital cost is usually high due to the addition of the dry coils. Recently, passive technologies, which make use of free solar energy or the latent heat of the hot, moist air rising through the cooling tower fill, have been proposed to minimize or abate the visible plume and/or conserve water. In this review, we contrast established versus novel technologies and give a perspective on the relative merits and demerits of each. Of course, no assessment of the severity of a visible plume can be made without first understanding its atmospheric trajectory. To this end, numerous attempts, being either theoretical or numerical or experimental, have been proposed to predict plume behavior in atmospheres that are either uniform versus density-stratified or still versus windy (whether highly-turbulent or not). Problems of particular interests are plume rise/deflection, condensation and drift deposition, the latter consideration being a concern of public health due to the possible transport and spread of Legionella bacteria.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Fluid MechanicsSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207