Comparison between experimentally determined flow instability thresholds and calculations using the computer code toscle.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental results from the Canadian forced convection loop FLARE (D'Arcy 1968) have been used to assess the value of the TOSCLE computer code (Spinks 1971) for calculating flow stability characteristics of pressure tube reactor systems. Good agreement has been found between TOSCLE calculations and the FLARE results for high values of subcooling. TOSCLE indicated a crucial boiling length as supposed by Shotkin (1967) . However, this does not appear to be consistent with the FLARE experimental data and large discrepancies occur at low subcoolings. The experimental results showed an increased scatter in the low subcooling region. A possible cause for this and for the discrepancy with calculated results at low subcooling are suggested. The sensitivity of TOSCLE results to various input parameters was examined. Most parameter variations were found to have only a minor effect on the results. Further experimental work in conjunction with detailed theoretical analysis is essential, particularly in the area of low subcooling which is of great importance in power reactor design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".