MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105572157 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450850306

A Quasi‐Steady State Shell and Shrinking Core Approach to the Drying of Porous Particles and an Example of Parameter Identification

2007· article· en· W2105572157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James L. Manganaro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal diffusivityMass transferParticle (ecology)Thermal conductivityHeat transferSteady state (chemistry)Porous mediumMaterials scienceDiffusionPorosityThermodynamicsShell (structure)MechanicsCore (optical fiber)ChemistryComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A quasi‐steady state shell and shrinking core approach which recognizes heat and mass transfer resistances in both the gas and particle phases for drying of a porous particle is proposed. A mean field model (constant properties) using this approach was embedded in a spreadsheet combined with a genetic algorithm for parameter identification to provide an easy means of characterizing the drying process from drying data. In drying, assuming a mean field, four major parameters are typically unknown: two related to the process (heat and mass transfer coefficients) and two which incorporate porous particle properties (shell thermal conductivity and vapour diffusivity). It is shown how these four parameters may be determined from experimental drying data. The model was applied to data for spouted bed drying of rice. For the particular case studied, external heat transfer was found to be the controlling mode, although resistance to moisture diffusion within the particle is important. The approach presented admits of future refinements to improve its scope and utility.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207