MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049659156 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450800426

Pressure Drop and Mass Transfer Study in Static Mixers with Gas Continuous Phase

2002· article· en· W2049659156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annabelle Couvert, Marie‐France Péculier, A. Laplanche

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure dropContactorMass transferStatic mixerMechanicsBubbleWork (physics)Drop (telecommunication)Flow (mathematics)Mixing (physics)Materials scienceVolumetric flow rateThermodynamicsTurbulenceMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this work was to characterize both the influence of the gas and the liquid flow rates on the pressure drop generated by static mixers type Sülzer, and on the mass transfer performances of these gas‐liquid contactors. The originality of this work rests on the use of the static mixers with a gas continuous phase. Several configurations were studied: vertical upward flow, vertical downward flow, and horizontal positions, with one to five mixing elements. It was concluded that the pressure drop is mainly generated by the gas phase, whatever the configuration chosen. Moreover, the volumetric mass transfer coefficients kLa found were lower than those obtained with the same static mixers used in classic conditions (that is with a liquid continuous phase), but greater than values obtained with classic reactors like bubble columns or packed columns. The efficiency of these gas‐liquid reactors was found high, as well as the energy dissipated, unfortunately.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207