MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044461638 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780511

Development of a novel non‐contact proximity gauge for thickness measurement of soft deposits and its application in fouling studies

2000· article· en· W2044461638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tri Tuladhar, W. R. Paterson, Norman Macleod, D.I. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCambridge TrustCambridge Overseas Trust
KeywordsFoulingBiofoulingMaterials scienceCalibrationMeasure (data warehouse)Gauge (firearms)Liquid metalComposite materialMetallurgyComputer scienceChemistryMembraneMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the development of a novel proximity gauging technique for soft deposits, exploiting a siphon effect. This non‐contact technique has the capability to measure the thickness of soft deposits on a surface in situ and in real time. A theoretical model of performance has been developed and its validity demonstrated by calibration experiments. Local thickness measurements of soft deposits such as whey protein deposit, supermarket butter and sticky foam on metal surfaces had an accuracy of ±20 μm for a deposit thickness of 500 to 1000 μm. The potential of this technique for on‐line monitoring of fouling and cleaning processes in liquid environments is demonstrated by preliminary studies of alkali (NaOH) cleaning of whey protein deposits from stainless steel surfaces.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations84
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207