MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088020157 · doi:10.1179/174328905x66153

Modelling of cohesive granular flow in powder processing

2005· article· en· W2088020157 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chetan Anand, C. T. Bellehumeur, Jalel Azaiez

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastics Rubber and Composites Macromolecular Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceGranular materialMonte Carlo methodFlow (mathematics)Mixing (physics)Work (physics)Composite materialMechanicsParticle (ecology)AdhesionCoatingMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several polymer processing operations such as rotational moulding and powder coating involve avalanching flow of granular materials. The objective of this work is to develop a model and simulate mixing and segregation of granular particles during such flow. The movement of particles has been modelled using the Monte Carlo approach. Important forces such as interparticle friction, adhesion and electrostatic forces have been incorporated in the simulation. Simulation results show segregation in the bed as a result of size differences and are consistent with published results for cohesionless systems. The simulation allows for the quantitative evaluation of the effects of particle characteristics and material properties on the flow behaviour of granular materials during processing, which, otherwise, could not easily be determined experimentally. Results showed that the gradual development of cohesive forces inhibits the movement of particles and can lead to the development of reverse segregation patterns.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastics Rubber and Composites Macromolecular EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207