MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971383701 · doi:10.1021/ef7002238

Mercury Removal Characteristics during Thermal Upgrading of Fractionated Alberta Subbituminous Coal

2007· article· en· W1971383701 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wataru Minami, Zhenghe Xu, Hee‐Joon Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalMercury (programming language)Flue gasHeat of combustionCombustionEnergy value of coalWaste managementCoal combustion productsMoistureChemistryFluidized bedEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to mercury emission control from coal combustion flue gases, coal cleaning and thermal upgrading are being considered as precombustion mercury emission control options. In our previous study, dry coal cleaning using an air dense medium fluidized bed (ADMFB) was shown to reject a substantial fraction of mercury in original coal while retaining acceptable combustible recovery. In this study, mercury removal characteristics by thermal upgrading were studied using Alberta subbituminous coals fractionated by a air dense medium fluidized bed (ADMFB). It was found that the bottom 28% of the run-of-mine coal cleaned by ADMFB separator contained over 57% ash-forming mineral matters and 46% mercury. Mercury removal from this fraction of coal increased rapidly at temperatures over 206–329 °C. During thermal upgrading, the mass of coal decreased and the calorific values increased with increasing upgrading temperature. The observed weight loss and increase in the calorific value of upgraded coal at temperatures between 106 and 329 °C were attributed mainly to the evaporation of moisture which does not contribute to calorific value, with a small amount to the loss of combustible volatiles.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
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 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207