MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158707935 · doi:10.1002/aic.12383

Modulation of suspension electrical conductivity to counter fines plugging in trickle‐bed reactors

2010· article· en· W2158707935 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Hamidipour, Faı̈çal Larachi

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsPressure dropKeroseneConductivityElectrical resistivity and conductivitySuspension (topology)Materials scienceElectrolyteChemistryElectrodeMechanicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modulation of electrical conductivity in kaolin/kerosene suspensions was examined as a means for the attenuation of fines retention in trickle‐bed reactors. The suspension stability was remarkably enhanced through ON‐OFF concentration modulation of an electrolyte‐based kerosene conductivity improver and resulted in an efficient bed‐cleaning strategy under operating conditions. Periodic additions of the conductivity improver enabled fines and deposits to gain momentarily large and similar electrical charges undoing, or impeding, multilayer deposition. The time evolution of the two‐phase pressure drop and specific deposit with/without conductivity improver was monitored, as well as the corresponding local deposition structure via electrical capacitance tomography (ECT). Electrical conductivity modulation was found to reduce the bed‐specific deposit by an order of magnitude and the bed pressure drop increment by a factor 14. ECT imaging evaluated the efficacy of this modulation strategy in mitigating deposition and in preventing filtration‐induced flow maldistribution. © 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2011

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207