MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323561617 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22490

Developments in slurry flow modelling in a historical perspective

2016· article· en· W2323561617 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kenneth Wilson, Anders Sellgren

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlurryReynolds numberLimit (mathematics)MechanicsDeposition (geology)Perspective (graphical)Particle (ecology)Flow (mathematics)MathematicsGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsGeologyMathematical analysisThermodynamicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Durand's slurry flow model attempted to find a single formula for sand‐size particles and larger, but Babcock's data showed that a single formula could not apply. A subsequent group of models is based on Wilson's layered force‐balance analysis of slurry flows applied to friction losses and deposition limit. Models based on variants of this analysis include those by Shook and others at the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). Early versions of Wilson's model relied on particle fall velocity to find friction losses, but the classical iterative method of finding fall velocity has now been replaced by a direct method. This is based on the shear Reynolds number of the particle, which can be expressed in terms of the better known Archimedes number. Thus, calculations of slurry friction and limit of deposition involve two principal parameters: the Archimedes number and the diameter ratio d/D.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207