Characterisation of airflow resistance of different moisture content wheat bulks mixed with different percentages and sizes of dockage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airflow resistance is a key factor related to physical properties of grain bulks and is influenced by dockage size and its percentage. A cubic chamber with inner dimensions of 500 × 500 × 500 mm was employed to investigate the airflow resistance of wheat bulks mixed with varying sizes (≤1.1 mm, 1.1–2.0 mm, and ≥3.3 mm) and percentages of dockage (0, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 %), along with different moisture contents (14.5, 16.5, and 18.5 %), airflow velocities (1.1–6.6 m s −1 ), and in both vertical and horizontal directions. The airflow resistance decreased with the reduced airflow velocity supplied by the fan, and the supplied airflow rate decreased with the increased airflow resistance. Fine materials (≤1.1 mm) mixed with the clean wheat led to 30–50 % increase of airflow resistance in both directions. Adding 1 % of dockage >3.3 mm (chaff) decreased the airflow resistance by ∼10 %, while adding dockage of 1.1–2 mm size (slightly smaller than wheat) did not result in airflow resistance change. Adding dockage with mixed size had an average 45.6 and 41.2 % increase of airflow resistance in horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. Airflow resistance in both clean and wheat mixture in the vertical direction was ∼50 % higher than that in the horizontal direction in any moisture content of wheat mixtures. This increased airflow resistance in the vertical direction was in the range of 10–117 %. The best regression equation was the Modified Haque model for predicting airflow resistances tested in this study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it