MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401772351 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25471

Pressure loss in packed beds of multicomponent mixtures of flat particles with particle overlap, including random chips

2024· article· en· W4401772351 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Evangelina Schonfeldt, William L.H. Hallett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTortuositySphericityParticle (ecology)Materials scienceRange (aeronautics)MechanicsParticle sizeReynolds numberShape factorComposite materialThermodynamicsChemistryGeometryMathematicsPhysicsTurbulencePorosityGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pressure loss measurements are presented for packed beds of multi‐component mixtures of thin angular parallelepipeds and of random wood chips for a Reynolds number range of 50 to 500. For flat particles like these, the degree to which the particles overlap is an essential factor in pressure loss, and this was measured using two different methods, including a novel technique involving progressive dismantling and photography of the bed. The experimental friction factors were found to be well represented by the Nemec and Levec pressure loss correlation, an Ergun‐type equation with an explicit dependence of the parameters on particle sphericity, with the equation expanded to include the effects of particle overlap and of packing anomalies at the wall. The friction losses of the mixtures were found to be somewhat higher than those of the individual component particles, requiring a minor change in the correlation parameters. Estimates of the tortuosity of the bed channels showed that the greater losses of the mixtures correspond to an increase in tortuosity.

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)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous MediaFrench-language works237,207