MICROFLOTATION OF FINE OIL DROPLETS BY SMALL AIR BUBBLES: EXPERIMENT AND THEORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A trajectory analysis accounting for hydrodynamic interactions and van der Waals attractions was performed to predict the kinetic constant for capture of fine but non-Brownian oil droplets by small air bubbles under creeping-flow conditions. For the range of bubble (40 μ ≤ 2a 1 ≤ 80 μm) and droplet (3 μm ≤ 2a 2 ≤ 20 μm) diameters of interest, the theoretical kinetic constant scales as k α φa 1 −0.86 a 2 1.21, where φ is the gas holdup, a 1 is the bubble radius, and a 2 is the droplet radius. Experiments with a batch flotation cell support these scalings, but the quantitative predictions for the capture rate are about three times higher than the measured values. Smaller bubbles are more efficient collectors because they have higher surface area per volume and cause weaker hydrodynamic interactions, whereas smaller droplets are floated less efficiently because they tend to flow around the rising bubbles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".