MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346477452 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22524

Modelling and experimental study of pressure elution of high‐viscosity substances with a low‐viscosity liquid from granular bed

2016· article· en· W2346477452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Błaszczyk, J. Sęk, Łukasz Przybysz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNarodowe Centrum Nauki
KeywordsElutionViscosityPorous mediumGranular materialVolumetric flow rateMaterials scienceChromatographyProcess (computing)Saturation (graph theory)Work (physics)MechanicsPetroleum engineeringProcess engineeringPorosityComputer scienceChemistryThermodynamicsGeologyMathematicsComposite materialEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The pressurized elution of oily substances with high viscosities from porous granular media is of primary importance from the point of view of enhanced oil recovery techniques and technologies. Accurate prediction of such processes can lead to their technical and financial optimization. Modelling considerations existing in the literature neglect many factors affecting elution phenomena. Additionally, extensive experimental data are not available. Other description methods are needed to enable more precise descriptions of the process. This paper develops a theoretical model which considers the dependence of oily substance elution on many parameters characterizing porous granular beds and flowing liquids. The influence of grain size distribution in the bed was considered, as well as the finite dimensions of the real bed. The bed saturation at the beginning of the process was also included in the modelling work together with eluent flow rate and media viscosity. Theoretical considerations were verified and supported with extensive experimental measurements.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207