MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069449138 · doi:10.2202/1542-6580.1730

Trickle-Bed Laboratory Reactors for Kinetic Studies

2009· article· en· W2069449138 on OpenAlex
Gaetan Mary, Jamal Chaouki, F. Luck

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrickle-bed reactorTRICKLEMass transferHydrodesulfurizationHomogeneity (statistics)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringCatalysisChemistryComputer scienceChromatographyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, different phenomena affecting laboratory trickle-bed reactors are carefully reviewed. Before focusing on laboratory scale, some general considerations about trickle-bed reactors are discussed: regimes, industrial uses, etc. The main factors a laboratory trickle bed reactors are presented and detailed. The greatest six factors include: homogeneity of the catalyst bed, catalyst wetting, axial dispersion, channeling, isothermicity and mass transfer. These factors are reviewed and different criteria, suggested in the literature, are given in order to minimize the influence of these six factors; for each criterion, a simple application is presented. Finally, the application of all the criteria given in the paper is based on a hypothetical example (hydrodesulfurization).

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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