MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Use of a Convection Boundary Condition in the Simulation of a Heat Tracer Experiment Conducted in Bedrock

2020· article· en· W3184531175 on OpenAlexaff
Kent Novakowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeat transferMechanicsBoreholeHeat transfer coefficientAdvectionConvective heat transferConvectionThermodynamicsBoundary value problemTRACERMaterials scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heat transfer experiments conducted in the subsurface are usually interpreted using either analytical or numerical models, which incorporate first-type boundary conditions (specified temperature) to introduce the heat into the solution domain. An alternative approach is to use a third-type boundary condition, often refereed to as a convection bc in the heat transfer literature, which includes a heat transfer coefficient to accommodate the exchange of heat between fluid flowing outside the domain to that inside the domain under potential. To explore the impact of this boundary condition, a semi-analytical model was developed for a linear flow system in a discrete rock fracture with advective heat transfer in the fracture and conductive heat transfer in the matrix. To illustrate the influence of the heat transfer coefficient, the model is applied to the results of a heat tracer experiment conducted in a discrete fracture connecting two boreholes in a crystalline rock, with warm fluid injection in one borehole and passive temperature measurement in the other. The experimental results were also simulated using a similar model having a first-type condition at the injection borehole for comparison. The simulations show that the heat transfer coefficient has a significant influence on the shape of the breakthrough curve and allows for an excellent match with the field data, whereas the model with the first-type condition cannot obtain a match of similar quality.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studies→French-language works237,207→