Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was conducted to investigate the film cooling effectiveness of a few configurations of short injection holes: single row, double row and both of the preceding cases with an upstream ramp placed at two different locations. In order to perform the above study, a wind-tunnel facility was assembled to facilitate in the successful culmination of the experiments. The focus of the study was to determine the cooling provided by the short injection holes at a variety of blowing ratios and whether adding an extra row of holes, upstream of the first row would make a difference. For the second part, a ramp was placed upstream of the single and double row configuration to help improve cooling . All of the experiments were performed in a low speed wind-tunnel with a mainstream velocity of 8 m/s and a turbulence insity of 3.3%. Higher blowing ratios were ineffective in improving film-cooling effectiveness due to jet lift-off. Two rows of holes increased the cooling effectiveness by 200%, when compared to single row configurations at the same blowing ratio without ramps. Upstream ramps provided significant improvement in the near hole region of the injection holes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".