MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161947219 · doi:10.82308/16007

Using a conductivity level probe for thickener control

2001· dissertation· en· W7161947219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandre. Probst

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrostatics and Colloid Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConductivityTotal dissolved solidsWork (physics)Suspended solidsHydraulic conductivityFiltration (mathematics)Measuring instrument

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A thickener is a continuous gravity separation device that reduces or removes suspended solid particles from liquor. Clarified liquor is removed from the top and thickened solids are discharged from the bottom. Thickeners are an essential part of plant water management. A conductivity-based sensor has been developed for use in a thickener and has been successfully tested in industrial applications. Data from at Falconbridge's Kidd Creek operations, Inco's Thompson and, in particular, Inco's Sudbury operations are discussed. The probe designed for this work is a multi-cell arrangement that exploits the difference in conductivity between the liquor and the slurry. Conductivity measurements are taken as a function of depth to provide a profile of the solids content of the thickener. Conductivity measurements can be converted to solids concentration (percent solids) using a model developed by Maxwell. The resulting solids concentration versus depth profile was used to interrogate the behaviour of the solids and to develop thickener control signals. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrostatics and Colloid InteractionsFrench-language works237,207