MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225164670 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24430

Modelling of binary fluidization of coal and ash and validation using radioactive particle tracking and densitometry

2022· article· en· W4225164670 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sangram Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluidizationFluidized bedComputational fluid dynamicsTracking (education)MechanicsParticle (ecology)CFD-DEMBinary numberCoalMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringPhysicsGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Binary fluidization finds wide application in a variety of gas–solid catalytic and non‐catalytic industrial fluidization systems. In the present study, a three‐dimensional transient computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was used to model the binary fluidization of coal and ash in a laboratory‐scale cold flow fluidized bed. In parallel, phase velocity measurements using radioactive particle tracking (RPT) and gamma‐ray densitometry were performed, which provided a rich database for validation of the CFD model. RPT being a time‐resolved Lagrangian technique, it was possible to extract velocity fluctuations and their correlations in addition to the mean velocity profiles. The latter provided additional validation for the CFD model, in addition to the typical validation that is done with time‐averaged profiles of phase velocity and volume fraction. The robust validation procedure opens up the possibility of expanding this model to a pilot plant‐scale fluidized bed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207