MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295027458 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24649

In‐situ monitoring of decane‐in‐water emulsion during microwave irradiation

2022· article· en· W4295027458 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shota Ueda, Sari Nakanishi, Atsuya Shibatani, Yusuke Asakuma, Chi M. Phan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmulsionDecaneBoilingIrradiationMaterials scienceSurface tensionMicrowave irradiationBubbleIn situMicrowaveChemical engineeringChemistryThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Microwave (MW)‐assisted de‐emulsification has been attractive in processes of petroleum production and refining. However, the mechanism and optimal operation remain poorly understood. In this study, the behaviour of decane‐in‐water emulsion under MW irradiation was monitored in‐situ through a size measurement system equipped with the reactor and surface tension profiles. The results indicated that the bubble was formed around the oil droplet during MW irradiation. The MW‐induced bubbles can enhance de‐emulsification in a similar mechanism as the flotation column. The efficiency of MW de‐emulsification depends on emulsion content and MW power. Although a higher MW power is more effective, boiling caused by excessive energy must be considered due to the higher local heating. As a result, moderate power is more desirable. For the decane‐in‐water emulsions in this study, the optimal condition was determined to be around 500 W.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207