MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310474480 · doi:10.3390/min12121528

The Correlation between Macroscopic Image and Object Properties with Bubble Size in Flotation

2022· article· en· W4310474480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Vinnett, Iván Cornejo, J. Yianatos, Claudio Acuña, Benjamín Urriola, Camila Guajardo, Alex Esteban

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa María
KeywordsBubbleSauter mean diameterRange (aeronautics)MathematicsMaterials scienceHydraulic diameterBiological systemAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyChemistryMechanicsComposite materialPhysicsThermodynamicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the correlation between different macroscopic features of image regions and object properties with the Sauter diameter (D32) of bubble size in flotation. Bubbles were sampled from the collection zone of a two-dimensional flotation cell using a McGill Bubble Size Analyzer, and photographed bubbles were processed using image analysis. The Sauter mean diameters were obtained under different experimental conditions using a semiautomated methodology, in which non-identifiable bubbles were manually characterized to estimate the bubble size distribution. For the same processed images, different image properties from their binary representation were studied in terms of their correlation with D32. The median and variability of the shadow percentage, aspect ratio, power spectral density, perimeter, equivalent diameters, solidity, and circularity, among other image or object properties, were studied. These properties were then related to the measured D32 values, from which four predictors were chosen to obtain a multivariable model that adequately described the Sauter diameter. After removing abnormal gas dispersion conditions, the multivariable linear model was able to represent D32 values (99 datasets) for superficial gas rates in the range of 0.4–2.5 cm/s, for four types of frothers and surfactant concentrations ranging from 0 to 32 ppm. The model was tested with 72 independent datasets, showing the generalizability of the results. Thus, the approach proved to be applicable at the laboratory scale for D32 = 1.3–6.7 mm.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207