MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987271189

Some effects on natural ventilation system for subway tunnel fires

2012· article· en· W6987271189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeiling (cloud)Froude numberDimensionless quantityNatural ventilationPlumeThermocoupleSmoke
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of experiments, using a 1:15 model tunnel, were designed in accordance with the Froude conservation approach to investigate the influential parameters on temperature distributions in tunnel fires with natural ventilation. The effect of parameters such as fire size, shaft length and height were investigated. A natural ventilation system was achieved by introducing four vertical shafts spaced at 4 m in the ceiling of the tunnel. In the study reported in this paper, propane gas, located on the floor of the tunnel, was used to simulate the fire source which produced heat release rates in the range of 3.61kW to 12.2 kW. The smoke temperature distributions along the tunnel ceiling and in the vertical direction along the tunnel length were measured using K-type thermocouples trees. Based on the fire plume theory, a dimensionless temperature was defined and it was found that the fire size did not have a major effect on the dimensionless temperature. Despite the fact that the shaft sizes did not significantly affect the distribution of the temperature in the near-field of the fire, they did influence the temperature values with the temperatures dropping with the increase of shaft size. Based on the one-dimensional theory and rational assumptions, two formulas were developed to predict the ceiling longitudinal temperature distribution in tunnel fires with natural ventilation.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207