MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041749529 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450790302

A new effective combination of a thin‐film extractor and gravity setter

2001· article· en· W2041749529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuli Berman, Abraham Tamir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtractorContactorMechanicsPressure dropRADIUSHysteresisFluidized bedMaterials scienceExpansion ratioVolume (thermodynamics)Power (physics)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsChemistryEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceChromatographyProcess engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous and present studies demonstrate that the new thin‐film extractor with the gravity settler have superior performance over other conventional devices. This is because the volume of the extractor and the settler are significantly reduced, on the average, by factors of 100 and 10, respectively, for a similar power input. Correlations for a water‐iodine‐kerosene liquid system developed in the past (Berman and Tamir, 2000) for the mass transfer and pressure drop were modified by incorporating the ratio R/R r This ratio takes into account the impact of the liquids on the walls of the reactor where R is the radius of the free film and R r is the radius of the reactor. In addition, an equation was proposed, which demonstrates the dependence of the extraction efficiency on the operating parameters. The gravity settler combined with the thin‐film extractor was tested thoroughly yielding two correlations for estimating its height, i.e. the fluidized‐bed and dense‐packed zones. In the present case the sedimentation zone is absent. A scale up procedure based on the model developed is proposed as well as a principle scheme of a pilot plant based on the new effective combination

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)0.000
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207