Retraction: Improving the melting performance in a triple-pipe latent heat storage system using hemispherical and quarter-spherical fins with a staggered arrangement
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retraction: Improving the melting performance in a triple-pipe latent heat storage system using hemispherical and quarter-spherical fins with a staggered arrangementAuthor: Frontiers Editorial Office* Frontiers Media SA, Lausanne, Switzerland A Retraction of the Original Research article:Improving the melting performance in a triple-pipe latent heat storage system using hemispherical and quarter-spherical fins with a staggered arrangementAbed AM, Mohammed HI, Patra I, Mahdi JM, Arshad A, Sivaraman R, Ibrahem RK, Al-Qrimli FA, Dhahbi S and Talebizadehsardari P (2022) Improving the melting performance in a triple-pipe latent heat storage system using hemispherical and quarter-spherical fins with a staggered arrangement. Front. Chem. 10:1018265. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2022.1018265 The journal retracts the 2022 article cited above. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the contributions of the authors of the article. Our investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers policies, confirmed a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics; the article is therefore retracted. This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Chemistry and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors do not agree to this retraction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.022 |
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".