MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056305974 · doi:10.1021/ie010553y

Preparation and Characterization of Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membranes for Membrane Distillation

2001· article· en· W2056305974 on OpenAlexaff
M. Khayet, Takeshi Matsuura

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyvinylidene fluorideMembraneMembrane distillationMaterials sciencePorosityChemical engineeringDimethylacetamideSolventFluorideDistillationCastingPolymerChromatographyComposite materialChemistryDesalinationOrganic chemistryInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) flat-sheet membranes were prepared for membrane distillation (MD). Pure water was used as a pore-forming additive in the casting solution. Dimethylacetamide (DMAC) was used as the solvent. The polymer solutions were cast over a glass plate or over a nonwoven polyester backing material. The prepared supported and unsupported PVDF membranes were characterized in terms of their nonwettability, pore size and porosity. MD experiments were carried out using a vacuum membrane distillation (VMD) configuration and employing pure water or chloroform/water binary mixtures as the feed. The influence of some relevant parameters, such as the feed temperature, stirring rate, or downstream pressure on the MD flux was studied. The effect of water in the casting solution on the geometrical properties of the membrane is discussed and evaluated. The dependence of the MD flux and separation factor on the geometrical properties of the supported and unsupported membranes was also studied.

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: 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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations351
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207