MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978250587 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20371

Mathematical modelling of fluidized‐bed reactors for non‐catalytic gas–solid reactions

2010· article· en· W1978250587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samane Maroufi, Behnam Khoshandam, Rupesh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFluidized bedThermodynamicsHydrogenPhysicsPhysical chemistryMineralogyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mathematical modelling of a continuous fluidized‐bed reactor has been carried out for non‐catalytic gas–solid reactions. The two‐phase bubbling bed model has been used and the elutriation phenomenon for the fine particles has been investigated. The feed stream consisting particles with size distribution and reversible or irreversible first‐order kinetics can be treated by the model. The reduction behaviour of solid reactants was described by the grain model. A program was developed in MATLAB software for solving the governing equations at conditions of different temperatures and pressures. The model was validated using experimental data and simulation results available in the literature for the iron ore reduction with a gas mixture containing hydrogen [Srinivasan and Staffansson, Chem. Eng. Sci. 45(5), 1253–1265 (1990)]. The mathematical modelling was also used for predicting the extent of reaction for reduction of cobalt oxide by methane.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicIron and Steelmaking ProcessesFrench-language works237,207