MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172165699 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202124903049

DEM modeling of segregation and stratification in pouring heaps of bidispersed mixtures of rounded particles

2021· article· en· W3172165699 on OpenAlexafffund
Tristan Vuilloz, David Cantor, Carlos Ovalle

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeap (data structure)Stratification (seeds)Binary numberDiscrete element methodMechanicsSPHERESDispersityMathematicsStatistical physicsGeologyPhysicsEngineeringAlgorithmChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to assess and analyse the patterns of segregation and stratification in pouring heaps of granular mixtures composed by binary sized and uniformly shaped particles. We present 2D and 3D simulations which respectively build deposits of poured disks and spheres by means of a discrete-element approach known as contact dynamics (CD). In order to identify preferable conditions for segregation and stratification, we try several deposition scenarios varying the pouring flow rate, injection height, heap’s width and mass ratio between large and small grains in our binary samples. Although some authors assert that shape dispersity might not be necessary to obtain stratification, the phenomenon seems hard to seize with mono-shaped granular media as it appears to require a close control on pouring conditions. The introduction of our DEM models and statistical analysis intend to provide examples of what could constitute efficient numerical tools to study the remaining open problems related to heap segregation patterns prediction.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207