MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230231006 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14651658.v1

Development of an Optical Method to Measure the Thermal Conductivity of Transparent Nanofluids

2021· preprint· en· W4230231006 on OpenAlexaff
Winsle Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanofluidMaterials scienceThermal conductivityHeat transferThermal conductionConvectionInterferometryTemperature gradientThermalNatural convectionMechanicsOpticsComposite materialThermodynamicsPhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative technique to measure the thermal conductivity of nanofluids was developed using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The technique is based on one-dimensional heat transfer occurring through a layer of deionized water and a layer of nanofluid, separated by an aluminum barrier. The fluid layers were heated from above to produce thermal stratification and to minimize free convection. The temperature gradient at the surface of both fluid domains, where the heat transfer occurs by pure conduction, was measured optically. The model was designed and evaluated using computational fluid dynamics. An experimental model was fabricated, and preliminary experiments were conducted with a SiO2-water nanofluid. The results indicate that this comparative optical method is viable. However, the thin optical windows used in the current experiments made accurate measurements difficult, due to stress-induced bending of the optical windows. Recommendations for improvements in the model design are discussed.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207