MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096628046 · doi:10.3390/met10111420

Decrease of Nozzle Clogging through Fluid Flow Control

2020· article· en· W3096628046 on OpenAlexaff
E Gutiérrez, José de Jesús Barreto, Saúl García-Hernández, R. D. Morales, María Guadalupe González-Solórzano

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsCloggingNozzleMechanicsDeposition (geology)Boundary (topology)Volumetric flow rateMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)ImpurityPetroleum engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsGeologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decreasing the clogging deposition rate of alumina inclusions in continuous casting nozzles is possible through three simultaneous measures: Flow modification, use of raw materials with low impurities contents, and smoothed internal surfaces. The control of the internal flow consists on avoiding dead regions and developing symmetric patterns. A mathematical model performed tests of the feasibility of these measures. The adherence of inclusions to the nozzle wall, using this model, employs a boundary condition based on the thickness of the sublaminar boundary instead of the conventional “trap” boundary condition. The use of the general boundary condition yields deposition rates that are unaffected by the inclusion size. The proposed boundary condition discriminates against the clogging deposition rate through the particle sizes. Plant trials complemented with water modeling, using these nozzles, proved that the present approach could considerably decrease the clogging occurrence.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207