MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116082949 · doi:10.82417/s0ys-5q82

A comprehensive computer model for thermal flows of moist air through porous media

2025· other· en· W7116082949 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorous mediumThermal conductionThermalHeat transferMass transferConvectionLatent heatLattice Boltzmann methodsNatural convectionPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately simulating the flow and thermal behaviors of moist air in porous media is essential for many natural processes and industrial applications. One particular example is that the Creighton and Kidd Creek Mines (Sudbury, Canada) use the fragmented rock as a cooling or heating source to regulate the temperature and humidity of the air for underground mine ventilation. To model such systems, an integrated model is established to incorporate fluid flow, heat transfer, mass transport, and phase change in a porous material. The model adopts a two-temperature representation, which allows us to account for convective heat transfer due to air flow, the thermal conduction between air and rock due to the temperature difference, as well as the latent heat effect during phase change. The multiple-relaxation-time (MRT) lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) is selected to solve the governing equations. In specific, the D3Q19 lattice model is used for the porous flow with the Darcy and Forchheimer forces considered, and the D3Q7 model is utilized for the solid and fluid temperatures as well as the vapor concentration transport process. Furthermore, the vapor-liquid phase change process is included based on the vapor concentration and temperature, and the associated heat and mass transfer are implemented as source terms in the corresponding governing equations.In this presentation, more details of the theoretical model and numerical techniques will be presented. Several validation tests will be discussed, where simulation results are compared to analytical solutions to demonstrate the correctness and accuracy of our programs. Example simulations will also be described for the potential applications of our model in future studies.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)French-language works237,207