MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405415838 · doi:10.1080/00084433.2024.2441553

Integrated portable gas dispersion device

2024· article· en· W4405415838 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey Opoku, Mark Lepage, Raymond Langlois, Kristian E. Waters

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Metallurgical Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDispersion (optics)Materials scienceEnvironmental sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new portable device for gas dispersion investigations based on the simultaneous measurements of gas holdup and bubble size in an integrated system. The aim of developing this device is to acquire a better understanding of the interdependence of flotation hydrodynamic parameters mainly: gas holdup (ϵg), bubble size, represented in this study as Sauter mean bubble diameter (D32), superficial gas velocity (Jg), frother type and frother concentration. Utilisation of the device can extend from laboratory to plant processes for investigating the effect of naturally occurring and residual surfactants as well as salts in process water on bubble size and gas holdup using dilution and frother equivalent techniques. Additionally, conventional methods of frother classification such as critical coalescence concentration determination of frothers can be determined as well. Lastly, a preliminary investigation into the use of bubble size and gas holdup for frother classification is explored. Experiments were performed in two-phase batch tests at varying superficial gas velocities of 0.5 cm s−1 and 1 cm s−1 and the frothers used were MIBC (methyl isobutyl carbinol), Flottec F140 (commercial frother blend of aldehydes and ketones) and Flottec F150 (polypropylene glycol). The results show the practicality and versatility of the device.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0350.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Metallurgical QuarterlySame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207