MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989079605 · doi:10.32964/tj11.9.31

Measuremets of sootblower jet strength in kraft recovery boilers - Part II: Results of the third and fourth field trials

2012· article· en· W2989079605 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Honghi Tran, Ameya Pophali, Markus Bussmann, Pasi Miikkulainen

Bibliographic record

VenueTAPPI Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNozzleJet (fluid)Kraft paperMechanicsWater jetChemistryJet fuelComposite materialMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two additional field trial studies were conducted in different kraft recovery boilers in Sweden using force-measurement probes to determine the force of sootblower jets under various blowing conditions. The results confirm the findings of previous trials that, at a given distance, the force exerted on a target by a fully expanded sootblower jet increases nearly linearly with an increase in lance pressure. At a given lance pressure, the jet force decreases drastically as the distance between the sootblower nozzle and the target increases. At a distance farther than 1 m from the nozzle, the jet retains less than 10% of its original strength. The studies also show clearly that the size and shape of the target have a significant effect on the force exerted on it by the jet. A flat surface receives a greater force from the jet than a target with an inclined surface.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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