MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293246308 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24419

Experimental methods in chemical engineering: Optical fibre probes in multiphase systems

2022· article· en· W4293246308 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shahab Golshan, Gregory S. Patience, Reza Zarghami, Jamal Chaouki, Bruno Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceOptical fiberBubbleParticle (ecology)SpectroscopyTurbulenceOpticsLight scatteringMixing (physics)MechanicsScatteringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As much as 75% of the raw materials in the chemical industry and 50% of consumer products are in the form of powders or granular solids. Gasification, pyrolysis, coating, granulation, drying, and mixing are examples of processes in which particles contact fluids. Researchers examine the hydrodynamics of these fluid–solid systems with pressure signals, acoustics, tomography, radioactive particle tracking, optical fibre measurements, and spectroscopy. Among these techniques, fibre optic probes are simple, inexpensive, and sensitive (spatial resolution of 100 μm) and have sampling frequencies of Hz. Optical probes measure local hydrodynamic properties, including particle velocity, solids fraction, and voids, which are difficult to measure in heterogeneous systems like spouted beds, risers, and turbulent fluidized beds. Light from a fibre optic bundle illuminates a specific volume, and fibres from the same or separate bundle return the reflected or transmitted photons to a detector (visible, near‐infrared spectroscopy, or Raman). Sample MATLAB codes included herein together with sample experimental data demonstrate how to process raw signals for gas/solids/and bubble holdup, particle and bubble velocity, bubble size, and solids flux.

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)0.001
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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