MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964056260 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23603

Investigation and development of gravity separators with a standardized experimental setup

2019· article· en· W2964056260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Steinhoff, Evgenia Charlafti, Laura Reinecke, Matthias Kraume, Hans‐Jörg Bart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlingSeparator (oil production)Materials scienceSauter mean diameterMechanicsGravity separationInletEnvironmental scienceThermodynamicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This contribution presents a standardized experimental setup for the development of gravity separators. Two different optical measurement techniques for the characterization of the inlet and outlet dispersion with a droplet spectrum of 20‐2000 μm are used. The settling behaviour in a standardized batch settling test (ERICAA cell) serves as a basis for predicting the drop diameter resolved separation efficiency of a horizontal continuous separator. The latter (DN150, length 0.65 m) was operated and monitored with a phase fraction of up to 15% and a load of up to 17.0 m3 m−2 h−1. A paraffin oil with a viscosity of 10 mPa s was the dispersed and water the continuous phase. Sauter mean diameters of dispersions measured inline show a good agreement with those calculated from batch settling tests. Additionally, the modelled separation efficiencies are compared to the experimental results produced with the continuous separator.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.170
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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