MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115082485 · doi:10.1002/ceat.201400606

Comparison of Overall Gas‐Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient for CO<sub>2</sub> Absorption between Tertiary Amines in a Randomly Packed Column

2015· article· en· W2115082485 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

VenueChemical Engineering & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass transferMass transfer coefficientAmine gas treatingChemistryVolumetric flow rateInert gasAbsorption (acoustics)Packed bedAnalytical Chemistry (journal)InertRaschig ringStructured packingSolventChromatographyMaterials scienceThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The mass transfer performance of CO 2 absorption into an innovative tertiary amine solvent, 1‐dimethylamino‐2‐propanol (1DMA2P), was investigated and compared with that of methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) in a packed column with random Dixon‐ring packing. All experiments were conducted under atmospheric pressure. The effects of inert gas flow rate, amine concentration, liquid flow rate, CO 2 loading, and liquid temperature on mass transfer performance were analyzed and the results presented in terms of the volumetric overall mass transfer coefficient ( K G a v ). The experimental findings clearly indicate that 1DMA2P provided better mass transfer performance than MDEA. For both 1DMA2P and MDEA solutions, the K G a v increased with rising amine concentration and liquid flow rate, but decreased with higher CO 2 loading. The inert gas flow rate only slightly affected the K G a v . A satisfactory correlation of K G a v was developed for the 1DMA2P‐CO 2 system.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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