MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of radiant and convective heat transfer models of photonic membrane using non-invasive imaging of condensation pattern

2021· article· en· W4200007679 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Teitelbaum, Dorit Aviv, Miaomiao Hou, J Li, Adam Rysanek, Forrest Meggers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Radiation and Cooling Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiant coolingDew pointCondensationConvectionHeat transferRadiative transferMechanicsThermodynamicsMaterials scienceRelative humidityOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cooling a sample of a material until condensation is observed is a standard technique for accurately measuring the dewpoint and associated relative humidity in a volume. When conducting an experiment with a membrane-assisted radiant cooling panel, we found that membrane surface temperatures were difficult to measure directly. Instead, the onset of condensation was used to infer the membrane’s surface temperature. However, the radiant cooling panels displayed variations of membrane surface temperature at steady state, and thus a resulting condensation contour was observed, forming a curve on which the membrane surface temperature was accurately known and constant - the dewpoint. The curve was in equilibrium between the internal panel temperature driven by internal free convection in the air gap and the view factor to surrounding surfaces, which can be evaluated at each point along the curve. In this paper, we assess the convective and radiative heat transfer balances using simulations. Our methods expand the “sensing” of condensation to provide information about view factor and thermal stratification, both of which are quantities that are difficult to measure adequately in the field.

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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
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

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicThermal Radiation and Cooling TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207