MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975442224 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780405

Modelling transverse mixing in a rolling drum

2000· article· en· W1975442224 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dennis R. Van Puyvelde, Michael A. Wilson, Brent R. Young, S. James Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsDrumMixing (physics)ExtrapolationMechanicsTransverse planeMaterials scienceRange (aeronautics)PhysicsMechanical engineeringMathematicsStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite materialMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, a new model of transverse mixing in a rotating drum is derived from dynamic data collected from an experimental rig. Since the active layer has often been declared as the zone that is responsible for the mixing of solids in a rolling bed, the active layer was characterized so that its properties could be predicted for a wide range of experimental conditions. The mixing model consisted of two correlations, one to predict the mixing rate in the drum and the other to predict the final contact between the two materials. These correlations were linked back to the operational variables of the drum, such as the drumfs loading, size and rotational velocity. By combining these two correlations the time required to fully mix the material in the drum could be predicted. The mixing model was tested against independent data and good agreement was observed between the experimentally derived results and those predicted by the mixing model. Furthermore, this mixing model was designed such that it would be easily applicable to different sized drums. The extrapolation ability was tested on different smaller‐sized drums and found to agree considerably with experimental results.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207