MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399393601 · doi:10.3390/fluids9060138

Correction Factors for the Use of 1D Solution Methods for Dynamic Laminar Liquid Flow through Curved Tubes

2024· article· en· W4399393601 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFluids · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminar flowFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modeling of transient flows of liquids through tubes is required for studies in water hammer, switched inertance hydraulic converters, and noise reduction in hydraulic equipment. While 3D gridded computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods exist for the prediction of dynamic flows and pressures in these applications, they are computationally costly, and it is more common to use 1D methods such as the method of characteristics (MOC), transmission line method (TLM), or frequency domain methods. These 1D methods give good approximations of results but require many orders of magnitude less computation time. While these tubes are typically curved or coiled in practical applications, existing 1D solution methods assume straight tubes, often with unknown deviation from the curved tube solution. This paper uses CFD simulations to determine the correction factors that can be used for existing 1D methods with curved tubes. The paper also presents information that can be used to help evaluate the expected errors resulting from this approximation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.276 · 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