MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311067367 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24792

Fabrication of <scp> CeO <sub>2</sub> </scp> microspheres by internal gelation process using flow‐focusing droplet generator

2022· article· en· W4311067367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Satyajeet Yadav, Animesh Chaturvedi, Ganesh Gaikwad, K. Ananthasivan, Aniruddha B. Pandit, Ratnesh Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeDispersityFourier transform infrared spectroscopyVolumetric flow ratePorosityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chemical engineeringComposite materialChemistryChromatographyPolymer chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sphere‐pac fuel is an alternative nuclear fuel technology in which microspheres of two or more sizes are utilized to fill the cladding tube in place of the more conventional single‐size fuel pellets. This provides leeway for adjusting the fuel pellet packing density and resulting cladding tube porosity. The current investigation makes use of a flow‐focusing droplet generator made from stainless steel (S.S.) 316 L, with a channel internal diameter (I.D.) of 0.5, 0.8, 1, and 3 mm. These microspheres were supposed to be of actinide oxide but here, cerium has been chosen as a surrogate of plutonium. Detailed information about the flow‐focusing droplet generator, internal gelation process, and sphere‐pac fuel has been provided. The size and size distribution of ceria microspheres were investigated by varying the flow rates of the continuous and dispersed phase. The characterization of ceria microspheres has been conducted using techniques such as scanning electron microscope (SEM), X‐ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier‐transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) analyses. The size of prepared monodisperse microspheres was controlled precisely (within ±2%) in the range of 498–2888 μm using four S.S. 316 L flow‐focusing droplet generators with channel I.D. 0.5, 0.8, 1, and 3 mm, respectively, and the coefficient of variation of the size distribution was found to be less than 2%.

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 score0.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207