MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967304086 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20645

Visualisation research on characteristics of the cryogenic slug flow in vertical and inclined tubes

2011· article· en· W1967304086 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yipeng Liu, Pingyang Wang, Xue‐Yu Hu, Hua Zhang, Zhaohui Du

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Jiao Tong University
KeywordsBubbleTube (container)MechanicsSlug flowPosition (finance)Flow (mathematics)Taylor numberOpticsPhysicsMaterials scienceGeometryTwo-phase flowMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The statistical parameters of Taylor bubbles in cryogenic slug flow along glass tube were studied experimentally for various inclination angles θ (0°–60° from the vertical direction) and four tube inner diameters D (14, 18, 25 and 32 mm) by using high speed digital camera. The distributions and mean values of initial formation position, and the length and velocity of Taylor bubbles along the tube at various inclination angles were obtained. Initial position of Taylor bubbles increases as tube inner diameter increases and the effect of tube diameter on Taylor bubble initial position becomes more obvious at θ ≥ 30°. Taylor bubble length shows an allometric decreasing trend with the increasing of tube inner diameter. The influence of inclination angle and axial position on the length and velocity of Taylor bubble in cryogenic slug flow agrees qualitatively with conventional air–water system. The maximum mean velocity of Taylor bubble occurs at 30° ≤ θ ≤ 45° and the minimum mean length of Taylor bubble occurs at 0° ≤ θ ≤ 20°. The Mean length of Taylor bubble increases along the tube for x / D ≤ 60. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207