Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion (AFBC) Plants: A Performance Benchmarking Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Energy Technology Center (NETL) -Morgantown in developing this research.They also acknowledge the support provided by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO).All conclusions are the authors' and should not be attributed to the sponsoring agencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".