MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401128463 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25435

Parameter sensitivity of a wood chips flow model

2024· article· en· W4401128463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sofia Evysdotter, Tomas Vikström, Anders Rasmuson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnergimyndigheten
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsMechanicsMaterials scienceVolume fractionSensitivity (control systems)Oscillation (cell signaling)Flow (mathematics)Permeability (electromagnetism)ViscosityComposite materialChemistryEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study of the parameter sensitivity of a wood chips model was performed on an industrial impregnation vessel, which is the first step in a continuous cooking system. The solid and liquid phases were both treated as continua and it was found that the continuum model for the solid wood chips phase could capture the previously observed oscillating formation of arches in the contracting part of the vessel, which will occur at different levels of volume fraction depending on the material constants. The parameters that were examined are the solid pressure, permeability, viscosity, and wall friction. It was found that all the parameters strongly affect the distribution of the wood chips in the vessel as well as the oscillation effects, hence also the flow field which is important to accurately predict in order to ensure optimal performance of the impregnation vessel. Thus, correct material data for these types of simulations are crucial to the outcome and should be chosen for the appropriate situation and bio‐material.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207