MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7081959985 · doi:10.11159/htff25.137

Effect of Uncertainties in the Simulation and Design of Thermal Systems

2025· article· en· W7081959985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermalWork (physics)Control systemControl theory (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most studies on the simulation, design and optimization of thermal processes and systems, wide ranges of the governing parameters are considered with definite values given to the different parameters.This results in a deterministic simulation, which could then form the basis for deterministic design and optimization of the system.However, uncertainties arise in realistic circumstances due to variations in the operating conditions, errors in material properties, changes in the ambient conditions and variations in the gases and raw materials used in the process.Such uncertainties can have a significant effect on the operation and design of the system.Minor variations in the design variables or operating conditions may lead to system failure and thus impact the reliability of the system or process.Therefore, it is important to include the effect of uncertainties to obtain a reliable and realistic system.In this paper, uncertainties in two thermal systems are considered.The optimal points with and without uncertainties are obtained.For multi-objective optimization, Pareto frontiers, which represent a set of nondominated designs where one objective cannot be improved without detriment to another objective, are determined and compared with those for the deterministic cases.The results demonstrate the importance of uncertainties in system simulation and design.This approach thus provides more reliable and realistic solutions than if the uncertainties are neglected.This basic approach may be extended to the design and operation of other thermal problems and processes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→