MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026886896 · doi:10.1021/ie801382d

Annatto Powder Production in a Spouted Bed: An Experimental and CFD Study

2008· article· en· W2026886896 on OpenAlexaff
Fabiano G. Cunha, Kássia Graciele dos Santos, Carlos Henrique Ataíde, Norman Epstein, Marcos A.S. Barrozo

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
KeywordsDraft tubeExtraction (chemistry)Factorial experimentComputational fluid dynamicsInletConical surfaceMaterials scienceTube (container)ChromatographyPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringChemistryMechanical engineeringComposite materialMathematicsMechanicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanical extraction of the bixin from Bixa orellana seeds using a spouted bed was investigated in this work. The experimental program was divided into two main steps. In the first step, a two-level factorial experimental design was used to analyze the influence of the main process variables on the mechanical extraction responses. The second step of the experiment was carried out to evaluate the effect of the distance between the draft tube and the conical base ( h t ). Computational fluid dynamic technique was used to understand seed flow and the effect of h t on the mechanical extraction process. The results obtained showed that the presence of the draft tube was the variable that most strongly affected the powder extraction. The best condition for the bixin extraction from B. orellana seeds was the one when the draft tube was positioned at 4 cm from the air inlet.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207