MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W833241014 · doi:10.1115/1.4030677

Effect of Orifice Geometry on the Development of Slightly Heated Turbulent Jets

2015· article· en· W833241014 on OpenAlexafffund
Sehaba Madjid, A. Benaïssa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReynolds numberDissipationPhysicsScalar (mathematics)Kinetic energyBody orificeTurbulenceScalar fieldMechanicsScalingJet (fluid)NozzleTurbulence kinetic energyClassical mechanicsGeometryThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passive scalar (temperature) mixing with different orifice geometries is considered at low Reynolds number. The kinetic energy dissipation rate shows that the three jets achieve a self-similar state quickly compared to a nozzle jet. Scalar dissipation evolves faster to the self-preserving state than kinetic energy dissipation and the asymptotic value of the normalized kinetic and scalar dissipation on the jet centerline can be predicted. Taylor and Corrsin microscales start evolving linearly with x/D as early as x/D = 10. Normalized spectra using these length scales continue to evolve for the circular jet and collapse faster for the six-lobe jet, when Rλ reach a constant value. The scaling factor and range for the velocity and the scalar suggest that the scaling region “similar to the inertial range” reaches equilibrium before small scales reach complete equilibrium. The use of multilobe jets promotes the development toward a complete self-preserving state for the scalar field.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207