On the fluidization of cohesive powders: Differences and similarities between micro‐ and nano‐sized particle gas–solid fluidization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fluidization of cohesive powders has been extensively researched over the years. When looking at literature on the fluidization of cohesive particles, one will often find papers concerned with only micro‐ or only nano‐sized powders. It is, however, unclear whether they should be treated differently at all. In this paper, we look at differences and similarities between cohesive powders across the size range of several nanometres to 10s of micrometres. Classification of fluidization behaviour based on particle size was found to be troublesome since cohesive powders form agglomerates and using the properties of these agglomerates introduces new problems. When looking at inter‐particle forces, it is found that van der Waals forces dominate across the entire size range that is considered. Furthermore, when looking into agglomeration and modelling thereof, it was found that there is a fundamental difference between the size ranges in the way they agglomerate. Where the transition between the types of agglomeration is located is, however, unknown. Finally, how models are made and agglomerate sizes are measured is currently insufficient to accurately predict or measure their sizes consistently.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".