MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166527913 · doi:10.1002/pi.1203

Defoamers: linking fundamentals to formulations

2003· article· en· W2166527913 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Pelton, Ted Flaherty

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefoamerParticle (ecology)Materials scienceNanotechnologyChemistryProcess engineeringEngineeringDispersantPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Antifoam (defoamer) chemicals are a crucial part of many industrial processes. Reviewed are the types of defoamers and their mode of operation. Emphasized are the properties and location of the hydrophobic particles which are the active foam breaking agents. The roles of surfactants in spreading, defoamer emulsification and hydrophobic particle orientation are also discussed. Finally, a simple model is described which simulates foam growth as functions of defoamer concentration, air hold‐up, reactor volume and air flow rate. Copyright © 2003 Society of Chemical Industry

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer InternationalSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207