MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056664618 · doi:10.1021/jp911949w

Gas−Liquid Flow Solid-Catalyzed Reactions in Magnetic-Field Emulated Microgravity

2010· article· en· W2056664618 on OpenAlexaff
Faı̈çal Larachi, Mugurel Catalin Munteanu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMagnetic and Electromagnetic Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiamagnetismSelectivityMagnetic fieldCatalysisWettingPhenylacetyleneMagnetMaterials scienceChemical engineeringChemical physicsChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyPhysicsOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The catalytic hydrogenation of α-methylstyrene and phenylacetylene were used to study the conversion and selectivity behaviors of wetting-sensitive solid-catalyzed gas−liquid flowing systems in artificial gravity generated in strong inhomogeneous static magnetic fields. Such microgravity environment maintained in a 9 T magnet for hours down to 10 −4 g for co-currently flowing diamagnetic gas/diamagnetic liquid systems was realized by matching the gas and liquid mass magnetic susceptibilities. Conversion of α-methylstyrene and selectivity of styrene were measured with and without magnetic fields at constant wetting efficiency and contact time. It was shown that magnetic fields affect conversion and selectivity of catalytic reactions exclusively via hydrodynamic phenomena. Hence, this method could prove useful to generate artificial microgravity in Earth-bound facilities to emulate passive/reactive catalytic multiphase flows in lunar/Martian gravity or in other microgravity conditions.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicMagnetic and Electromagnetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207