MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071892118 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20494

Micromixing in two‐phase (G‐L and S‐L) systems in a stirred vessel

2011· article· en· W2071892118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Hofinger, Robert W. Sharpe, Waldemar Bujalski, Serafim Bakalis, Melissa Assirelli, Archie Eaglesham, Alvin W. Nienow

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicromixingRushton turbineImpellerDissipationMechanicsChemistryTurbulenceMaterials scienceThermodynamicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The literature on micromixing and local‐specific energy dissipation rate, (on which it depends), for two‐phase systems is limited and conflicting. Here, the competitive iodide/iodate reaction scheme has been used to study the effect of particles and gas flow rate on micromixing in a Rushton turbine agitated vessel. Gassing rates up to 1.5 vvm did not show any effect on product distribution compared to the ungassed at constant mean‐specific energy dissipation rate for a feeding near the impeller. Near the upper liquid surface, micromixing improved with increasing flow rate because it increased fluid turbulence. These results confirm the limited literature. With 500 µm glass beads at concentrations up to 2.5 wt.%, micromixing was unaffected near the impeller and near the surface. The related literature is very unclear and it is difficult to draw any precise conclusions. At ∼12 wt.% when cloud formation was observed, micromixing was significantly worse, especially, it is shown for the first time, in the clear layer above the cloud. The latter finding is significant for processes such as precipitation where micromixing determines the particle characteristics.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207