MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555669879 · doi:10.1515/ijcre-2016-0081

Mathematical Modeling of Carbon Nanotubes Formation in Fluidized Bed Chemical Vapor Deposition

2016· article· en· W2555669879 on OpenAlexaff
Firoozeh Danafar, S.S.E.H. Elnashaie, Hassan Hashemipour, Mohammad Rostamizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeCatalysisFluidized bedChemical vapor depositionMaterials scienceChemical engineeringYield (engineering)Deposition (geology)Carbon fibersChemical reactorNanotechnologyChemistryComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates mathematical modeling of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) formation on catalyst particulate in a fluidized bed chemical vapor deposition (FBCVD) reactor. The mass of CNTs formed corresponds to the catalyst activity directly. The catalyst deactivation occurs as active sites are occupied by CNTs and thus causes unsteady state behavior of the process. The effects of catalyst loading (as bed height) as well as reaction temperature on the reaction progressing were investigated. The model, validated with our experimental data, indicates a good accuracy to predict the yield of CNTs formation for a given operating conditions. The model presented also can predict the optimized time as well as the suitable amount of catalyst loading to produce CNTs for a given reactor conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor EngineeringSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207