Progression of wet granulation in a twin screw extruder comparing two binder delivery methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two available wetting methods for twin screw granulation, namely foam delivery and liquid injection, were studied in detail by examining granule development along the screws as powder formulation and screw design were varied. Granulation profiles were determined by particle size analysis of samples along the screws collected using the “screw pullout” technique. Analysis of the particle size and porosity of produced granules revealed only minor differences between the two methods of wetting despite the larger dropsize of liquid injection compared to foam delivery. Excipients like microcrystalline cellulose or hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose with poor spreading properties, quantified by their specific penetration time and nucleation ratio, made the differences more apparent. The general similarities in granulation independent of wetting method implied that binder dispersion in an extruder was dominated by mechanical dispersion. Screw design (i.e., location of kneading block) had the dominant effect on the granulation process in this study. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 61: 780–791, 2015
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".