MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400297315 · doi:10.3390/en17133260

On the Determination of Efficiency of a Gas Compressor

2024· article· en· W4400297315 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Sudbury
FundersIndependent Electricity System OperatorNorthern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation
KeywordsGas compressorProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a gas undergoing a compression process, it is more appropriate to think of either isentropic or polytropic efficiency as process-defining parameters indicating that a given end state of compression has been achieved, rather than a measure of effectiveness of conversion of one form of energy into another. The polytropic efficiency, as defined in ASME PTC-10 standard for compressor field trials and acceptance tests, actually involves the comparison of two distinct compression processes, neither of which are actually connected to the performance of the compressors producing them. Consequently, it is not rational to compare the ASME PTC-10 polytropic efficiency of a compressor designed to compress a gas predominantly adiabatically with that for a compressor designed to compress a gas predominantly isothermally. A framework correcting this situation is set out and is illustrated with several numerical examples. Suggestions for maintaining backward compatibility with ASME PTC-10 are also put forward.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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