MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974677479 · doi:10.1021/ef020181l

Biomass Air−Steam Gasification in a Fluidized Bed to Produce Hydrogen-Rich Gas

2003· article· en· W1974677479 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen productionFluidized bedBiomass (ecology)HydrogenWaste managementSteam reformingChemistryEnvironmental scienceChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characteristics of biomass air−steam gasification in a fluidized bed for hydrogen-rich gas production are studied through a series of experiments. The gasifying agent, air, was supplied into the reactor from the lower part of the reactor, and steam was added into the reactor above the biomass feeding location. The effects of reactor temperature, steam-to-biomass ratio, equivalence ratio ER, and the biomass particle size on gas composition and hydrogen production are investigated. From the experimental results, it can be seen that the higher reactor temperature, the proper ER, proper steam-to-biomass ratio S / B, and smaller biomass particle size will contribute to more hydrogen production. The highest hydrogen yield, 71 g H 2 /kg biomass (wet basis), was achieved at a reactor temperature of 900 °C, ER of 0.22, and S / B of 2.70. It is shown that under proper operating parameters biomass air−steam gasification in a fluidized bed is one effective way for hydrogen-rich gas production.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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