MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987351835 · doi:10.32964/tj10.2.27

In-Situ Measurements of Sootblower Jet Impact in a Recovery Boiler

2011· article· en· W2987351835 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kari Saviharju, A. Kaliazine, Honghi Tran, Tanveer Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueTAPPI Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNozzleBoiler (water heating)Jet (fluid)Flue gasMechanicsVibrationImpactKraft paperMillChemistryEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsComposite materialAcousticsWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two mill trials were conducted in a recovery boiler at a kraft mill in Sweden using a force measurement probe to examine the performance of a sootblower under different blowing conditions. The results show that at a given distance, the force produced by the sootblower jet increases almost linearly with an increase in lance pressure. At a given lance pressure, the jet force decreases rapidly as the distance increases, retaining less than 10% of its original strength at a distance beyond 1 m from the nozzle. The results also suggest that flue gas temperatures in the vicinity of the sootblower have an insignificant effect on sootblower performance, and that the sootblowing jet force exerted on a tube target can fluctuate widely, particularly at a close distance. Force fluctuations are caused mainly by the vibration of the target as it is struck by the jet. The change in jet strength is caused by platen swinging and the tremor of the system that holds the target.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTAPPI JournalSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207