MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081348662 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450800503

Solids Circulation Flux and Gas Bypassing in a Pressurized Spout‐fluid Bed with a Draft Tube

2002· article· en· W2081348662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rui Xiao, Mingyao Zhang, Baosheng Jin, Xiangdong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSoutheast University
KeywordsDraft tubeAnnulus (botany)DistributorMechanicsMaterials scienceFlux (metallurgy)Tube (container)Conical surfaceCirculation (fluid dynamics)Volumetric flow rateInletThermodynamicsComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An experimental study on solids circulation flux and gas bypassing of a spout‐fluid bed with a draft tube at elevated pressures up to 600 kPa was performed in a 200 mm diameter cylindrical steel column with a 608 conical distributor. Glass beads with mean diameter 2.067 mm were used as bed materials to investigate the effect of operating conditions and geometric configuration on the solids circulation flux and the gas distribution between the annulus and the draft tube. A novel technique has been developed to measure the solids fluxes under pressure, and gas (CO2) traces have been employed to investigate gas bypassing characteristics. The solids circulation flux is greatly enhanced when operating pressure and auxiliary gas flowrate are increased, and it is also strongly influenced by geometric configuration. Two experimental relations are proposed for predicting solids circulation flux enhancement factors.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207