MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387804119 · doi:10.1080/13647830.2023.2271437

Different conditional source-term estimation formulations applied to turbulent nonpremixed jet flames with varying levels of extinction

2023· article· en· W4387804119 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir H. Mahdipour, Cécile Devaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCombustion Theory and Modelling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsApplied mathematicsTerm (time)TurbulenceMathematicsA priori and a posterioriMechanicsThermodynamicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present study is to investigate two new formulations of the Conditional Source-term Estimation (CSE) model using Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) calculations applied to Sandia flames D and F. The first method relies on a first-order Tikhonov regularisation and the second approach denoted by CSEBP, includes Bernstein polynomials to approximate the conditional averages. Current predictions for temperature, main product and minor species are consistent with previously published CSE results with a different implementation. However, smoother conditional profiles are obtained with less a priori information. Both formulations have good predictions for flame D with minor discrepancies near the inlet and one position downstream, with occasional small advantages for CSEBP. In contrast to previous RANS-CSE attempts, stable solutions are obtained for flame F in good agreement with the experiments. Considering the RANS and single conditioning limitations to capture transient effects, both formulations predict the changes of conditional averages and Favre averaged quantities from flame D to F well, except at one location where the predicted re-ignition occurs earlier than what is seen in the experiments. Additionally, the computational cost of the CSE routine is decreased significantly from 85% of the total computational cost to only 10% for the first formulation and under 3% for CSEBP by means of using hash tables for storing the results of interpolations from the chemistry tables and avoiding on-the-fly interpolations.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombustion Theory and ModellingSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207