Calculation of the phase separation rate in two‐phase flow of non‐ <scp>Newtonian</scp> power‐law fluid and gas bubbles flowing inside the <scp>T‐</scp> and <scp>Y</scp> ‐junctions using random vortex method ( <scp>RVM</scp> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, the phase separation rate in a two‐phase flow of non‐Newtonian power‐law fluid and gas bubbles flowing inside T‐ and Y‐junction channels with branch angles of 45° and 135° is numerically investigated. The numerical simulation is carried out using the random vortex method (RVM) for the Reynolds number of liquid phase at the inlet of the channel Re m = 250 for various power‐law indexes ( n = 0.2–1.4). The result of this research represents valuable information about the effect of branch angle and also the power‐law index on the phase separation. The result shows that when increasing the branch angle, the phase separation is increased, while when increasing the power‐law index, the phase separation is decreased. The acceptable conformation between this study and the experimental results shows the capability of the evaluated method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".