MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317634726 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-1644

Gasdynamic Techniques for Producing Sustained High-Temperature Gas Flows: An Overview

2023· article· en· W4317634726 on OpenAlexaff
Pejman Akbari, Craig T. Johansen, Colin Copeland, Stefan Tüchler

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMaterials scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-1644.vid The energy exchange between two gases can be effectively used to produce a steady jet of high-temperature gas for significant test durations by the use of unsteady flow principles. The distinguishing characteristic of this approach is a sudden rise in temperature and pressure caused when the shock wave passes through a gas. This paper presents a historical overview of past efforts in designing wave energy exchangers as a possible method to provide continuous production of a hot gas for petrochemical pyrolysis and hypersonic purposes. The concept of a wave reformer representing one of the most promising applications of shock wave reactors is also presented that compliments prior works. These efforts are innovative embodiments of typical wave rotors that have been primarily used as topping units for gas turbines or supercharges for diesel automobile engines in the past. The success of previous works suggests that this approach should be revisited by employing modern experimental measurements and new computational capabilities which are available now.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA SCITECH 2023 ForumSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207