MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015015331 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450790203

Radial nonuniformity index (RNI) in fluidized beds and other multiphase flow systems

2001· article· en· W2015015331 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jesse Zhu, Samwel Victor Manyele

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDirektoratet for Utviklingssamarbeid
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)MechanicsStandard deviationFluidized bedFluidized bed combustionIndex (typography)Materials scienceStatisticsThermodynamicsMathematicsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The radial nonuniformity index (RNI) is a new non‐dimensional index recently devised to quantify the extent of radial variations of flow parameters in fluidized beds and other multiphase flow systems. The index, defined as the ratio of the standard deviation of the given flow parameter in the radial direction to the maximum practically possible standard deviation of that particular parameter, is shown to be an excellent measure of the radial flow structure. This index allows the use of a single value to summarize the radial variation of a given flow parameter. The higher the value of the RNI the less uniform is the flow, and vice versa. Using this technique, radial distributions of local solids concentration and particle velocities from different circulating fluidized bed systems (gas‐solid and liquid‐solid, upflow and downflow) were examined. It has been found that the RNI can be confidently related to the flow conditions in the circulating fluidized beds, and more insight understanding has been achieved.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 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

Citations68
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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