MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W130999292 · doi:10.15173/esr.v12i2.459

Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion (AFBC) Plants: A Performance Benchmarking Study

2004· article· en· W130999292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jack Fuller, Harvie Beavers, D.L. Bonk

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Studies Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Energy Technology Laboratory
KeywordsBenchmarkingEnvironmental scienceCombustionFluidized bedWaste managementBusinessChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors analyzed data from a fluidized bed boiler survey distributed during the spring of 2000 to begin the process of developing AFBC (Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion) performance benchmarks. The survey was sent to members of CIBO (Council of Industrial Boiler Owners), who sponsored the snrvey, as well as to other firms who had an operating AFBC boiler on-site. The useable response rate to the survey was approximately thirty-two percent, resulting in thirtyfive useable surveys to analyze. ( It should be noted that there are approximately 110 operating AFBC units in the United States to whom the survey was directed.) The survey respondents principally used AFBC technology in steam and power plants ranging in size from a few MW (megawatts) to several hundred MW in size.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Studies ReviewSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207