MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156602676 · doi:10.1002/aic.10768

On the design of crystallization‐based separation processes: Review and extension

2006· article· en· W2156602676 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaBayer Canada
KeywordsCrystallizationDiagramExtension (predicate logic)Separation (statistics)Data flow diagramIdentification (biology)Computer scienceProcess engineeringMathematicsAlgorithmEngineering drawingEngineeringSystems engineeringChemical engineeringStatisticsMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An analysis is given of various aspects of the design of crystallization‐based separation processes. A literature review is included for each of the different themes treated in the study. Special emphasis is placed on the usefulness of the relative composition diagram as a tool for identification of possible flow sheets for separations based on fractional crystallization. A series of rules are derived that may be of practical value in the use of the relative composition diagram. Illustrative examples are included that present the advantages and limitations of this methodology. Results are compared with those obtained from the literature where available. © 2006 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2006

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.260 · 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