MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385271051 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.3c01364

Characterization of the Effective Density for the Separation of Immersed Objects in the Gas–Solid Fluidized Bed Coal Beneficiator

2023· article· en· W4385271051 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhijie Fu, Jesse Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFluidizationFluidized bedBeneficiationCoalDragMaterials scienceMechanicsPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringWaste managementGeologyMetallurgyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective density for the separation of immersed objects which determines the performance of coal dry beneficiation is of primary importance for Gas–Solid Fluidized Bed Coal Beneficiator (GSFBCB) applications. Of all factors affecting the effective density, fluidization hydrodynamics and properties of medium particles and immersed objects play the dominant roles. By correlating all available experimental data found in the literature, a general correlation has been developed for the first time to predict the effective density for immersed object separation in fluidized beds, ρ sep = 0.95 ρ bed + 1.88 ρ drag, where ρ bed is the fluidized bed density, and ρ drag is the effective bed density contributed by fluidization hydrodynamics. This correlation could accurately predict the effective density for various immersed objects in fluidized beds with single or binary particle systems in existing experimental results. With wide applicability and great accuracy, the proposed correlation not only provides an efficient way for the design and operation of the GSFBCB for coal dry beneficiation but also is applicable for iron and copper ore pretreatment, agricultural crop cleaning, municipal solid waste classification, etc.

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)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207