MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982649005 · doi:10.1002/aic.12125

Extents of reaction and flow for homogeneous reaction systems with inlet and outlet streams

2010· article· en· W1982649005 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Amrhein, Nirav Bhatt, Balasubrahmanyan Srinivasan, Dominique Bonvin

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsInletHomogeneousFlow (mathematics)STREAMSMechanicsChemistryChemical reaction engineeringChemical reactorThermodynamicsCatalysisComputer sciencePhysicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For homogeneous reaction systems with inlet and outlet streams, this article proposes a linear transformation of the number of moles vector into three distinct parts, namely, the reaction variants, the inlet‐flow variants, and the reaction and inlet‐flow invariants. The transformed states can be interpreted physically as (i) the amount of material contributed by each reaction and still present in the reactor (extents of reaction), (ii) the amount of material contributed by each inlet stream and still present in the reactor (extents of inlet flow), and (iii) the fraction of the initial conditions that has left the reactor (extent of outlet flow). Furthermore, several implications of being able to compute the extents of reaction and inlet flow are discussed. The methodology is illustrated in simulation via the ethanolysis of phthalyl chloride. © 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2010

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations65
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicProcess Optimization and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207