Minimum spouting velocity of fine particles in fountain confined conical spouted beds using machine learning and least square fitting approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study concerns the development of new models to estimate the minimum spouting velocity ( U ms ) in various configurations of fountain‐confined conical spouted beds (FC‐CSBs) with fine particles. Existing literature correlations were found to be inaccurate for FC‐CSBs. Therefore, smart modelling techniques were employed to design more accurate predictive tools. The radial basis function (RBF) approach provided the best predictions for systems without draft tubes as well as those with open‐sided draft tubes. Additionally, the Gaussian process regression (GPR) approach yielded the best predictions for systems with nonporous draft tubes. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) values for the testing phase were 5.80%, 5.67%, and 5.59%, respectively. These models consider how bed shape and particle properties affect U ms . The sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the factors with more importance in controlling U ms . Finally, simpler correlations were derived for U ms prediction in different FC‐CSB configurations, with accuracy around 12% error.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".