MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117255596 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20502

Assessment of mixing quality for an industrial pulp mixer using electrical resistance tomography

2011· article· en· W2117255596 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Wisarn Yenjaichon, Gerry Pageau, Manish R. Bhole, Chad P. J. Bennington, John R. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMixing (physics)Volumetric flow rateMaterials scienceSuspension (topology)Electrical resistance and conductancePulp (tooth)Composite materialMechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The quality of mixing of a pulp suspension and chlorine dioxide by a static mixer in an industrial chlorine dioxide bleaching stage was evaluated using electrical resistance tomography (ERT) as a function of process operating conditions, including chemical flow rate, suspension flow rate, and suspension mass concentration. The uniformity was quantified by a mixing index based on the coefficient of variation of the individual conductivity values in each image pixel. An increase in the mixing index, indicating lower mixing quality, was observed when the chemical flow rate increased. In addition, the mixing quality decreased with a decrease in suspension flow rate. On the other hand, a decrease in the suspension mass concentration at a constant volumetric suspension flow rate gave better mixing quality. The results show that ERT can be used to evaluate industrial‐scale mixer performance and to monitor the changes in the mixing quality as a function of process operating conditions. The results are in good agreement with those in the literature based on other measurement techniques for similar mixer installations.

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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207