MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981677099 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20637

An estimate of the axial dispersion during flow through a compressible wood‐chip bed

2011· article· en· W1981677099 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
M. Alaqqad, Chad P. J. Bennington, D. Mark Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompressibilityPorosityMechanicsMaterials scienceCompactionDispersion (optics)Porous mediumGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialGeologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, we present a methodology to characterise the axial dispersion of a solute during steady‐flow through a compressible bed of wood chips under mechanical load. We use a non‐invasive imaging technique, namely electrical resistance tomography (ERT), to visualise the uniaxial displacement of a salt solution. Here we demonstrate that under two limiting cases the porosity of the porous bed varies slowly in the flow‐direction and to the lowest order can be considered a constant. This simplified the optimisation routine we used to match the experimental data to the numerical results of the advection–diffusion equation. Using this, a methodology to estimate the axial dispersion is given by a minimisation scheme. In the experimental portion of the work we measure the axial dispersion of a bed of hemlock wood chips at three different kappa numbers κ , and compacted to three different compaction pressures p c . We find that the dispersion D e in the axial direction varies as a function of the porosity ε , according to $D_{{\rm e}} = a\varepsilon {}^{b} $ , where a = 7.2 × 10 −4 m 2 /s and b = −3.8 for hemlock wood chips. © 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207