MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489372988 · doi:10.1021/ie010032a

Characterizing Spray Pulsations Using a Phase-Doppler Particle Analyzer

2001· article· en· W2489372988 on OpenAlexafffund
Siva Ariyapadi, Ram Balachandar, Franco Berruti

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSyncrude
KeywordsIntermittencyNozzleSpectrum analyzerSpray characteristicsParticle (ecology)Phase (matter)MechanicsMaterials scienceParticle-size distributionParticle sizeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsChemistrySpray nozzlePhysicsChromatographyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study focuses on understanding the pulsation characteristics of a spray generated with a feed nozzle commonly used in the petrochemical industry. A novel technique for characterizing the spray pulsation based on the data acquired using a phase-Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) is illustrated. Two-phase vertical sprays are generated using air and water at three different air-to-liquid mass ratios. Visual observations using an imaging technique indicated the presence of pulsations. Using the PDPA data, an intermittency factor, γ, denoting the degree of pulsation is defined. The mode of injection of the two phases and the effect of the carrier gas on the spray pulsations and the droplet size−velocity characteristics are also investigated. The present results indicate that the factor γ, coupled with the droplet size−velocity distribution, can be effectively used to characterize pulsating sprays.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207