MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994433578 · doi:10.1021/ie061048+

Gas Hydrate Growth Model in a Semibatch Stirred Tank Reactor

2007· article· en· W1994433578 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahrzad Hashemi, Arturo Macchi, Phillip Servio

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContinuous stirred-tank reactorHydrateChemical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gas hydrate growth model of Englezos et al. ( Chem. Eng. Sci. 1987, 42, 2647) was modified based on a concentration driving force where the equilibrium concentration at the hydrate surface is determined at the surface pressure and temperature, with the latter varying between the bulk and three-phase equilibrium temperature depending on the rate of heat removal. In order to study hydrate growth kinetics, literature mole consumption rates and hydrate surface area obtained in a semibatch stirred tank reactor were used. The extraction of the intrinsic kinetic rate constant is intimately linked to the estimated hydrate surface area, which is difficult to accurately measure. Theoretical estimation of the surface area using a population balance is also problematic since it does not account for the inherent presence of foreign particles, of unknown quantity and size distribution, serving as nucleation sites. Finally, mole consumption rates in such experimental systems may be controlled by gas−liquid interphase mass transfer, suggesting that accurate interphase mass transfer coefficients are required for proper estimation of the intrinsic kinetic rate constant.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations69
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207