MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025507427 · doi:10.1021/ie071131c

Revisiting the Performance of a Coaxial Mixer

2007· article· en· W2025507427 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaProcter and Gamble
KeywordsBaffleRushton turbineLaminar flowReynolds numberImpellerMechanicsCoaxialTurbulenceTurbineMixing (physics)Materials sciencePower (physics)PhysicsThermodynamicsMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of a coaxial mixer combining an anchor and a Rushton turbine was investigated for different diameter ratios and rotating modes in the laminar and transition flow regimes. Based on mixing efficiency criteria, this study confirmed that the co-rotating mode is consistently yielding the best results in the laminar and early transition regimes. The best performance was obtained for a turbine to tank diameter ratio of 1/3. In the upper transition and turbulent regimes, the best performance was obtained with the anchor at rest acting like two opposed baffles. With such a configuration, the optimum diameter ratio was found to be 1/2. New definitions of Reynolds number and power number were also introduced based on new characteristic diameter and speed. These correlations shown to be applicable for radial and axial impellers and are significantly better than the ones proposed in the literature.

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.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.244 · 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