MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254722994 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.10.02.002

Mixed Convection in Superposed Nanofluid and Porous Layers Inside Lid-Driven Square Cavity

2015· article· en· W4254722994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanofluidMaterials sciencePorous mediumIsothermal processMomentum (technical analysis)MechanicsHeat transferComposite materialPorosityThermodynamicsNanoparticlePhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mixed convection in a lid-driven composite square cavity is studied numerically. The cavity is composed of two layers; a Cu–water nanofluid layer superposed a porous layer. The porous layer is saturated with the same nanofluid. The left and right walls of the cavity are thermally insulated. The bottom wall which is in contact with the porous layer is isothermally heated and being lid to the left, while the top wall is isothermally cooled and being lid to the right. Cavity walls are impermeable except the interface between the porous layer and the nanofluid. Maxwell-Brinkman model is invoked for the momentum exchange within the porous layer. Equations govern the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy within the two layers were modeled and solved numerically using under successive relaxation (USR) up- wind finite difference scheme. Four pertinent parameters are studied; nanoparticles volume fraction φ (0.0 - 0.05), porous layer thickness Wp (0.1 - 0.9), Darcy number Da (10-7 – 10-1), and Richardson number Ri (0.01 - 10). The results have showed that the existence of the porous layer in a specified value can enhance the convective heat transfer when Ri ≥ 1, while an adverse action of nanoparticles is recorded when Da ≥ 10-4.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207