MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041553316 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21930

Turbidimetry for the stability evaluation of emulsions used in machining industry

2013· article· en· W2041553316 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin Glasse, Cristhiane Assenhaimer, Roberto Guardani, Udo Fritsching

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLubricants and Their Additives
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsTurbidimetryMetalworkingMachiningDemulsifierProcess engineeringEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryMaterials scienceChemistryChemical engineeringEmulsionChromatographyEngineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emulsified fluids are used in many industrial and consumer areas, for instance as products in the food or health industry as well as technical fluids in the machining industry. Metalworking fluids (MWF) are used as coolants and lubricants in metalworking processes. During their usage MWF emulsions may change their physical and chemical properties, which influences their performance and decrease the physical stability and therefore their lifetime. This article discusses results of turbidimetric spectra measurement of MWF emulsions to be used for process control, MWF quality monitoring and formulation purposes. Therefore, laboratory experiments have been carried out investigating the physical stability. Metal working emulsions have been treated and destabilised by different concentrations of salts. The destabilisation process was monitored by undiluted turbidity measurements and evaluated by the temporal change of the wavelength exponent. Thus, it was possible to determine specific conditions, for example a specific critical salt concentration for maintaining, stability of the MWF formulations.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicLubricants and Their AdditivesFrench-language works237,207