From previous paper (and referenced here) pipe dia is 5cm. Measurements are made at "Up 1cm, Up 2cm, Up 3cm, R 1cm, R 2cm, R 3cm, Center".
It is not clear what this means. The measurements cannot be referenced to the centre (only 2.5cm of movement possible). If referenced to edge they apparently show airflow uniform (very close) over the middle 3cm of the 5cm tube - assuming symmetry.
It means the anemometer probe was traversed across the air flow outlet tube.
Actually this ignores the size of the probe
It is small. You could look it up.
More to the point, if the calorimetry is not working correctly, how do you explain results such as the 50 W calibration? Quoting the paper "Over 24 hours, average input electric power was 50.6 W. An average of 46.6 W of heat was captured in the stream of air. After taking into account heat losses from the calorimeter walls, the average was 50.5 W." Do you think that is a coincidence? It just happened to be within 0.1 W? There are many other calibrations at other power levels. This is first-principle calorimetry. In other words, if the air flow is measured incorrectly, the results will be wrong. It does not depend on a calibration, although a calibration does confirm it.
If calibrations do not prove the instrument is working correctly, what would? How can anyone prove anything, if we don't believe calibrations?
To put it another way, when calibrations at different power levels done repeatedly over two years show that the instrument always measures output correctly to within 0.1 W of input power, how likely is it that 53 measurements of 30 to 100 W are wrong? How likely is it that several ~250 W measurements are wrong? The traverse test is important. It lays to rest one of the big concerns of air flow calorimetry. However, the calibrations alone should be enough to give confidence with excess power at such high levels. It was questionable back when excess heat was typically around 10 W, but it is not questionable at 30 W, 100 W, or 250 W.