MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246259844 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.10.02.009

Exergy Analysis of Modified Solar Still

2015· article· en· W4246259844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicSolar-Powered Water Purification Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExergyCooling towerHeat exchangerSolar stillEnvironmental scienceExergy efficiencyMass flow rateVolumetric flow rateBrackish waterMass flowEnvironmental engineeringTowerMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesWater coolingEngineeringMechanicsMechanical engineeringWaste managementDesalinationChemistryGeographyPhysicsGeologySalinityStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new design of solar still consist of flat plate solar collector, heat exchanger and cooling tower, was built and tested under Iraq weather at March. The still was tested under different mass flow rate of brackish water entering the flate plate solar collector, ranging from 0.01 to 0.015 kg/s. The volume flow rate of air through cooling tower was 0.0195 m3 /s. A full details of overall system as well as for system components exergy analysis were achieved. It was found that the maximum daily exergy efficiency of the still is less than 1%. While the maximum hourly exergy efficiency and maximum productivity for such combination were 3.46 kg/day and 1.6% , respectively, when the mass flow rate of brackish water was 0.013 kg/s.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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