MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983770005 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22070

ECVT imaging of 3D spiral bubble plume structures in gas‐liquid bubble columns

2014· article· en· W1983770005 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aining Wang, Qussai M. Marashdeh, Liang‐Shih Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleCylinderMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Body orificeMultiphase flowSpiral (railway)Materials sciencePorosityPlumeGeometryPhysicsMathematicsEngineeringThermodynamicsMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography (ECVT) is a 3D, real‐time imaging technique that is recently developed to image the multiphase flow behaviour in columns of regular or irregular geometries. In this study, the ECVT measurements are conducted to obtain phase holdups and flow structures in bubble columns of a straight‐cylinder shape and a tapered‐cylinder shape with porous and orifice gas distributors. The phase holdups obtained by the ECVT in a straight‐cylinder bubble column with porous gas distributor are verified by other measurement techniques and correlation equations reported in the literature. The flow regimes of the bubble columns are also characterized by the ECVT. Particularly, a dynamic 3D flow structure, which is uniquely represented by the spiral motion of the bubble plumes occurring within the heterogeneous regime of the gas‐liquid flow in a straight‐cylinder shape bubble column with perforated distributor, is captured for the first time instantaneously over the entire flow field with the ECVT. Other flow behaviour such as the converging flow pattern of the gas bubbles in a tapered‐cylinder shape bubble column is also revealed by the ECVT.

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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207