MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093337796 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20553

Power and flow characteristics of three rotor‐stator heads

2011· article· en· W2093337796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. Gül Özcan-Taşkın, Dominik J. Kubicki, Gustavo Padron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorRotor (electric)Flow (mathematics)Computational fluid dynamicsDispersion (optics)Power (physics)Power flowMaterials scienceMechanicsRange (aeronautics)Line (geometry)Mechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsThermodynamicsElectric power systemMathematicsComposite materialOpticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In‐line rotor‐stators are used in a wide range of industrial applications—primarily for dispersion processes such as emulsification, deagglomeration. Three rotor‐stator heads have been used to investigate their performance in breaking up of nanoparticle clusters within a large project. This article reports the findings of a part of this study aimed at investigating the flow and power characteristics in single phase to highlight the differences of three different mixer heads. Power characteristics are determined using the calorimetry allowing the characteristic power numbers for these devices to be obtained. These are also compared with CFD calculations. Flow characteristics are studied through numerical simulations.

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)0.001
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207