MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401180717 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110703

Mathematical Modeling Comparison for the Temperature Distribution Results in the Three Types of Blades Agricultural Waste Mixing Agitator for Forming Materials

2024· article· en· W4401180717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phaiboon Boupha, Ponthep Vengsungnle, Aphichat Srichat, Chaiyan Junsiri, Kittipong Laloon, Sakkarin Wangkahart, Kaweepong Hongtong, Sahassawas Poojeera

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgitatorMixing (physics)AgricultureDistribution (mathematics)Environmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringMathematicsMechanicsWaste managementMechanical engineeringPhysicsMathematical analysisEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article concerned the mixing of high-viscosity fluids using close-clearance impellers in a cylindrical tank (caustic soda and water).This investigation employed a numerical model to evaluate the performance of three distinct impeller designs at rotational speeds of 10, 20, and 30 rpm.The analysis concentrated on parameters indicative of mixing efficiency, including color dispersion, vector movement of the mixed material, temperature gradients from the tank wall to the center, and the average temperature within the agitator tank.Results indicated that the ribbon impeller operating at 30 rpm achieved the highest average temperature (53.69℃) across all measurement points within the mixing vessel compared to the other impeller configurations.This finding suggests that the ribbon impeller design is most effective in promoting optimal mixing.Additionally, the heat distribution within the tank exhibited a high degree of uniformity, which contributed to consistent vector movement of the mixed material.Furthermore, the temperature gradient, representing the average temperature variation from the tank wall to the center at each depth, was most pronounced with the ribbon impeller design.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207