MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102580498 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450840505

Study of Hydrodynamics, Mixing and Gas-Liquid Mass Transfer in a Split-Rectangular Airlift Reactor

2008· article· en· W2102580498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Gourich, N. El Azher, Christophe Vial, M. Belhaj Soulami, M. Ziyad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensionless quantityPhysicsMixing (physics)Mass transferThermodynamicsMechanicsAirliftNozzleMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global hydrodynamic characteristics, liquid mixing and gas-liquid mass transfer for a 63 L split-rectangular airlift reactor were studied. Correlations for gas holdup and overall liquid circulation velocity were derived for the air-water system as a function of the specific power input; these were compared to data and correlations for reactor volumes between 4.7 L and 4600 L. A partial recirculation of small bubbles in the riser was observed when Ugr > 0.03 m/s, which was attributed to the use of a single-orifice nozzle as the gas phase distributor. The dimensionless mixing time and the overall axial dispersion coefficient were nearly constant for the range of gas flow rates studied. However, values of KL/dB were greater than those reported in previous studies and this is caused by the partial recirculation of the gas phase in the riser. While scale effects remain slight, the use of a gas distributor favouring this partial recirculation seems adequate for mass transfer in split-rectangular airlift reactors.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207