Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exergy analysis is used to evaluate the efficiency of a turbojet engine over an entire flight (including climb, cruise and descent), and to assess the sensitivity of these results to the selection of the reference environment. This study is an extension of previous work where the accuracy of an exergy analysis of a turbojet engine is evaluated for different reference environments on an instantaneous basis. The present work evaluates cumulative engine efficiencies. The results show that the use of a constant reference environment set at cruise altitude conditions yields cumulative exergy efficiencies that are within 0.01% of those found using a variable reference environment (equal to the operating environment conditions at all times) over a 3,500 km flight. This result is in contrast to the use of a constant sea-level reference environment where such are 3.7%. This significant cumulative efficiency difference with the choice of reference environment is not observed when using an instantaneous exergy analysis. Care must be exercised when using a constant reference environment, as for both constant sea-level and cruise-altitude reference environments cumulative rational efficiencies increase over the majority of the flight, whereas for a continuously varying reference environment these efficiencies decrease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".