MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177400818 · doi:10.1063/5.0065986

Laminar flow characterization using low-field magnetic resonance techniques

2021· article· en· W3177400818 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiangfeng Guo, Michael Ross, Benedict Newling, Maggie Lawrence, Bruce J. Balcom

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhysicsLaminar flowMagnetic fieldFlow (mathematics)Characterization (materials science)Field (mathematics)MechanicsNuclear magnetic resonanceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laminar flow velocity profiles depend heavily on fluid rheology. Developing methods of laminar flow characterization, based on low-field magnetic resonance (MR), contribute to the widespread industrial application of the MR technique in rheology. In this paper, we outline the design of a low-cost, palm-sized permanent magnet with a 1H resonance frequency of 20.48 MHz to measure the laminar flow. The magnet consists of two disk magnets, which were each tilted at an angle of 1° from an edge separation of 1.4 cm to generate a constant gradient, 65 G/cm, in the direction of flow. Subsequently, a series of process methods, for MR measurements, were proposed to characterize Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluid flows in a pipe, including phase-based method, magnitude-based method, and a velocity spectrum method. The accuracy of the proposed methods was validated by simulations, and experiments in Poiseuille flow and shear-thinning flow with the designed magnet. The new velocity profile methods proposed are advantageous because the MR hardware and measurement methods are simple and will result in a portable instrument. Although the governing equations are complicated, the data analysis is straightforward.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207