MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149004463 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780309

Gas‐liquid mass transfer in low‐ and medium‐consistency pulp suspensions

2000· article· en· W2149004463 on OpenAlexaffvenue
V. B. Rewatkar, Chad P. J. Bennington

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsCatalyst Paper (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass transferMass transfer coefficientDistilled waterAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mass fractionChemistrySuspension (topology)Materials scienceChromatographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The volumetric gas—liquid mass transfer coefficient (kLa) was measured for low‐ and medium‐consistency pulp suspensions using the cobalt‐catalyzed sulfite oxidation technique. Mass transfer rates were measured in a high‐shear mixer for a range of operating parameters, including the rotor speed (N = 10 to 50 rev/s), gas void fraction (Xg = 0.10 to 0.40) and fibre mass concentration (Cm = 0.0 to 0.10). kLa measurements were compared with the macroscale flow regime in the vessel (characterized using photographic techniques) and correlated with energy dissipation, gas void fraction and suspension mass concentration in the mixer. We found that gas‐liquid mass transfer was significantly reduced in pulp suspensions, even for low suspension concentrations. Part of this reduction was associated with dissolved components leached from the fibres into the liquid phase. This could account for reductions in kLa of up to 30% when compared with distilled water. The fibres further reduced kLa, with the magnitude of the decrease depending on the fibre mass concentration. Correlations were developed for kLa and compared with results available in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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