MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988742909 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450790412

Lateral flux and velocity of FCC particles in a CFB riser

2001· article· en· W1988742909 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
S. Malcus, Todd Pugsley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnnulus (botany)Flux (metallurgy)Mass fluxMechanicsCore (optical fiber)Materials sciencePhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The radial profiles of the lateral solids mass flux and the lateral solids velocity were determined for FCC particles in a 7 m tall circulating fluidtzed bed riser 0.14 m in diameter by applying a lateral flux probe and electrical capacitance tomography. The external solids mass flux was varied between 148 and 302 kg/(m2.s), while the superficial gas velocity was varied between 3.7 and 4.7 m/s. Under these conditions, a dense bottom region and an upper dilute region coexisted in the riser. Lateral fluxes in the dense bottom region reached 100 kg/(m2.s) at the wall, but fell to 14 kg/(m2.s) at the wall in the upper dilute region. At both axial locations, a net deposition of solids from the core to the annulus occurred, indicating that fully developed flow was never established under these conditions. The lateral fluxes in the bottom region were significantly larger than those found in previous studies. It was further concluded that considering the lateral solids flux to be only a function of solids concentration is an over‐simplification.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.171
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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