MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903580651 · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ac1bc9/pdf

Convective heat transport in slender cells is close to that in wider cells at high Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers

2021· article· en· W6903580651 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsPrandtl numberTurbulent Prandtl numberRayleigh numberAspect ratio (aeronautics)Rayleigh scatteringConvectionMagnetic Prandtl numberReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\n\nDirect numerical simulations of turbulent convection at high Rayleigh numbers in large aspect ratio cells are challenging because of the prohibitive computational resources required. One can achieve high Rayleigh numbers at affordable costs for low aspect ratios, but the effect of small aspect ratio remains to be understood fully. In this work, we explore integral quantities in convection in a cell with the small aspect ratio of 0.1 by varying both the Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers systematically. We find that the heat transport in this flow is within 10% of that in cells with large aspect ratios for high enough Rayleigh numbers and for Prandtl numbers larger than unity. For low Prandtl numbers, the increase of the heat transport is steeper for low aspect ratios, approaching that in large aspect ratios as the Prandtl number increases. Further, the global momentum transport, quantified by the Reynolds number, is reduced for all Prandtl numbers, presumably because of the larger volume of flow affected by the friction from sidewalls, compared to that in cells of larger aspect ratio.\n

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207