Heat Flux Measurements and Their Uncertainty in a Large-Scale Fire Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat flux data from a series of controlled experiments involving a 2 m diameter, wind-blown pool fire are examined to highlight the difficulties involved in conducting heat flux measurements in a realistic, large-scale, hydrocarbon-fueled fire. Data were taken at several locations along the ground near the fire. At each location, three different heat flux sensors were positioned together: a Gardon gage, a directional flame thermometer (DFT) and a Sandia heat flux gage (HFG). Methods were first developed to correct measured values of heat flux for the slight differences in gage location relative to the fire. The remaining discrepancies between the values of heat flux measured by the different gages were then used to highlight uncertainties in heat flux measurements due to differences in gage surface temperature, in gage thermal response to the inherent modes of heating involved in the large hydrocarbon fire environment, and in conduction losses from the gage sensor plates. The importance of these sources of discrepancy varied depending on the magnitude of the measured heat flux and on whether the gages were located in a radiation-dominated or mixed radiative-convective environment within the fire.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".