MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157840128 · doi:10.1002/ceat.201500071

Power Draw and Gas‐Liquid Mass Transfer Characteristics of a Stirred‐Tank Reactor with Draft Tube Configuration

2015· article· en· W2157840128 on OpenAlex
Juergen Lueske, Kishore K. Kar, Luciano Piras, J. Pressler

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
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
FundersDow Chemical Company
KeywordsDraft tubeImpellerContinuous stirred-tank reactorAirliftMass transferAerationSpargingBioreactorRushton turbineTurbineMixing (physics)Mass transfer coefficientMechanicsTube (container)Mechanical engineeringNuclear engineeringChemistryEngineeringChemical engineeringWaste managementChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stirred‐tank reactors (STR), in which gas and liquid phases make intimate contact for mass transfer, are quite common in chemical processes. Mechanical agitation enhances the mixing performance and the oxygen transfer capability in bio‐STR, but they cannot be aerated at high rates because of impeller flooding. Another type of reactor widely used in bioprocessing is the airlift bioreactor, which consists of a draft tube and operates with an internal airlift loop. In this work, the mass transfer characteristics of a draft tube‐impeller agitation system (combination of a conventional airlift and a stirred bioreactor) were investigated in a large‐scale tank. The draft tube design configuration shows superior mass transfer performance compared to a conventional down‐pumping agitation system consisting of a Rushton turbine combined with a pitched‐blade turbine.

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 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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.162 · 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