MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966127449 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23610

Prediction of bubble terminal velocity in surfactant aqueous solutions

2019· article· en· W2966127449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaixin Zheng, Chen Li, Xiaokang Yan, Haijun Zhang, Lijun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBubbleAqueous solutionPulmonary surfactantTerminal velocityMechanicsReynolds numberTerminal (telecommunication)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryMaterials scienceThermodynamicsPhysicsChromatographyComputer sciencePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bubble terminal velocity has a significant effect on gas holdup, residence time, and efficiency of the interface transfer. Surfactant is often required to generate small and stable bubbles in gas‐liquid two‐phase devices. In this paper, bubble terminal velocities were obtained for different surfactant aqueous solutions using high‐speed CCD (charged couple device) system and digital image analysis technology. Experimental results showed that available correlations were not able to accurately predict terminal velocity of bubbles rising in surfactant aqueous solutions. Thus, a new correlation is proposed based on experimental data and it provides an accurate approximation of bubble terminal velocity. The average relative error for the proposed correlation is determined to be 7.2% in MIBC aqueous solutions, 4.5% in OP‐10 aqueous solutions, and 4.6% in 2‐octanol aqueous solutions. The proposed correlation agrees well with experiment data from literate within ranges of the Morton number, Mo , the bubble Reynolds number, Re , and the Eötvös number, Eo : 3.29 × 10 −11 < Mo <4.29 , 0.08< Re <1062 , 0.04< Eo <91.16 .

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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