MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330649759 · doi:10.1021/op5001918

From Batch to Continuous Chemical Synthesis—A Toolbox Approach

2014· article· en· W2330649759 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Plouffe, Arturo Macchi, Dominique M. Roberge

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganic Process Research & Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPfizer
KeywordsContinuous stirred-tank reactorPlug flow reactor modelPlug flowChemistryChemical engineeringMicroreactorYield (engineering)Chemical reactorMixing (physics)Batch reactorFlow chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryCatalysisThermodynamicsPhysical chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A toolbox approach for the transfer of batch to continuous chemical synthesis is presented. The approach considers reaction kinetics (Type A, B, C), reacting phases (single phase, liquid–liquid, gas–liquid and liquid–solid), and the reaction network (parallel and consecutive reactions) in order to select the most appropriate reactor module (Plate, Coil, or CSTR) for continuous operation. Then, three case studies using these three fundamental reactors are presented but require special considerations. For the reaction of dimethyl-oxalate with ethylmagnesium chloride, a plug-flow multi-injection technology must be used to decrease the local heat generation and improve yield. For the nitration of salicylic acid, a Plate reactor with mixing elements favoring some back-mixing followed by a plug-flow system at elevated temperatures is used instead of a tandem mixed-flow CSTR and plug-flow Coil reactor in order to minimize the risk of thermal decomposition of intermediates with a reduced volume penalty. Finally, a ring-closing metathesis reaction is discussed for which the utilization of a CSTR allows the removal of catalyst-poisoning ethylene formed during the reaction and keeps the substrate concentration low to increase the yield above that of a batch or plug-flow system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations142
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganic Process Research & DevelopmentSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207