MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105164867 · doi:10.1002/aic.11432

Gas‐solids flow structures in a novel circulating‐turbulent fluidized bed

2008· article· en· W2105164867 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluidizationTurbulenceVolume (thermodynamics)MechanicsFluidized bedChemistryFlux (metallurgy)Particle (ecology)Flow (mathematics)Fluidized bed combustionThermodynamicsMixing (physics)Materials sciencePhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article a novel circulating‐turbulent fluidized bed (C‐TFB) featured by high solids holdup and high gross solids circulation has been introduced and tested. The purpose of the new design was to integrate conventional circulating and turbulent fluidized beds into a unique high‐density fluidization system for more efficient gas‐solid contact and significantly reduced solids backmixing. The hydrodynamic characteristics of the C‐TFB were analyzed in terms of differential pressure, solids concentration, particle velocity, and local solids flux distributions. An axial homogeneous flow structure was easily obtained with cross‐sectional average solids volume concentrations higher than 0.25 throughout the entire C‐TFB. At all measuring positions there was no net downflow of solids and a good gas‐solid mixing was observed. © 2008 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2008

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.197 · 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