MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969252501 · doi:10.1021/ie0502077

Micronization of Phenanthrene Using the Gas Antisolvent Process:  Part 2. Theoretical Study

2005· article· en· W1969252501 on OpenAlexaff
Yousef Bakhbakhi, Sohrab Rohani, Paul A. Charpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNovartis PharmaNovartis
KeywordsPhenanthreneThermodynamicsNucleationSaturation (graph theory)ChemistryMicronizationSupersaturationParticle sizeMaterials sciencePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the second part of our study, a rigorous mathematical model was developed and simulated using Parsival for the gas antisolvent recrystallization process using phenanthrene−toluene−carbon dioxide as a model system, This model accounts for the governing physical phenomena, i.e., the thermodynamics of near-critical solutions, and the particle formation process controlled by primary and secondary nucleation, and crystal growth. Simulations were performed for changes in the main operating parameters, i.e., the antisolvent addition rate and saturation level. The simulations were performed at a process temperature of 25 °C, while the antisolvent addition rate ( Q A ) was varied between 1 and 100 mL/min, and the initial solute concentration was varied between 25% and 100% of the concentration ratio. The model was successfully able to predict/represent the experimental observations phenomenologically. It was shown that the simulation findings were consistent with the experimental results, and good quantitative agreement was achieved.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicCrystallization and Solubility StudiesFrench-language works237,207