MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384499470 · doi:10.32920/23696952.v1

Using a tracer technique to identify the extent of non-ideal flows in the continuous mixing of non-Newtonian fluids

2023· preprint· en· W4384499470 on OpenAlexaff
Dineshkumar Patel, Farhad Ein‐Mozaffari, Mehrab Mehrvar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixing (physics)TRACERMechanicsNewtonian fluidFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceSimulationPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The identification of non-ideal flows in a continuous-flow mixing of non-Newtonian fluids is a challenging task for various chemical industries: plastic manufacturing, water and wastewater treatment, and pulp and paper manufacturing. Non-ideal flows such as channelling, recirculation, and dead zones significantly affect the performance of continuous-flow mixing systems. Therefore, the main objective of this paper was to develop an identification protocol to measure non-ideal flows in the continuous-flow mixing system. The extent of non-ideal flows was quantified using a dynamic model that incorporated channelling, recirculation, and dead volume in the mixing vessel. To estimate the dynamic model parameters, the system was excited using a frequency-modulated random binary input by injecting the saline solution (as a tracer) into the fresh feed stream prior to being pumped into the mixing vessel. The injection of the tracer was controlled by a computer-controlled on-off solenoid valve. Using the trace technique, the extent of channelling and the effective mixed volume were successfully determined and used as mixing quality criteria. Such identification procedures can be applied at various areas of chemical engineering in order to improve the mixing quality. </p>

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207