Ash Research from Palm Coast, Florida to Banff, Canada: Entry of Biomass in Modern Power Boilers<sup>†</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than 40 years, regular worldwide conferences on ash and corrosion research have been held, in the beginning, within the framework of the United Engineering Foundation (UEF). The first conference was held in Marchwood, just outside Southampton in the UK in 1963, the next is coming up in Banff, Canada, in Autumn 2008. At the UEF ash conference in Palm Coast, FL, 1991, the late Dr. Richard Bryers provided an excellent outline of trends in ash research presented at these conferences in the period 1963−1991. Since 1991, ash conferences have been held in Solihull, UK, 1993; Waterville Valley, NH, 1995; Kona, HA, 1997; Park City, UT, 2000; and Snowbird, UT, 2001 and again in 2006. At the 1995 Waterville conference, the first papers on biomass-related ash research were provided. Since then, several aspects of utilization of biomass in power boilers have been addressed. It started out with pioneering release studies of alkali metals from biomass and a significant number of characterization as well as modeling studies. Later, a number of advanced analytical techniques, as well as detailed studies of deposition in all scales from the laboratory to full-scale, has been presented. This paper provides an outline of the trends in the papers presented, since the review by Bryers in 1991, and provides ideas on the direction of the research within this forum in the years to come.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".