MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293747346 · doi:10.1515/ijcre-2021-0258

NanoParticle Flow Reactor (NanoPFR): a tested model for simulating carbon nanoparticle formation in flow reactors

2022· article· en· W4293747346 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Juan, Ali Naseri, M. Reza Kholghy, Murray J. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanoparticleMaterials scienceCarbon blackPyrolysisFlow chemistryContinuous reactorFlow (mathematics)Particle (ecology)AgglomerateCarbon fibersSootPlug flow reactor modelChemical engineeringContinuous stirred-tank reactorMechanicsNanotechnologyChemistryCombustionOrganic chemistryContinuous flowEngineeringComposite materialPhysicsCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flow reactors are widely used to study the formation of various nanoparticles, such as carbon black, soot, nickel, titania, and silica. Such reactors provide well-controlled conditions, making them a favored laboratory tool to investigate the details of particle formation. Here we present NanoParticle Flow Reactor (NanoPFR), a detailed model to simulate nanoparticle synthesis in flow reactors. The model predicts the agglomerate fractal-like morphology and size distribution with a 2-variable sectional population balance model coupled with gas-phase chemistry. The particle formation processes employed in the code are tested using detailed discrete element modeling simulations and then used to predict carbon black formation from ethylene pyrolysis experiments from the literature. The code is a robust flow reactor predictive tool with a strong foundation that can serve as a basis for further development, including the simulation of other nanoparticles formation.

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)0.001
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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207