Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The product distribution for the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis is normally described using the kinetically derived (Anderson–Schultz–Flory) ASF model. Variations of the kinetic model have been proposed to explain deviations from the ASF distribution. The Fischer–Tropsch system can be equally well described using a pseudo‐element (CH 2 , H 2 , O) equilibrium approach. A one‐parameter equilibrium model is derived for the product distributions for alkenes, alkanes and alcohols. The Fischer–Tropsch system should be considered as three separate partial equilibria systems: the product homologous series; the water gas shift system, and the redox behaviour of the catalyst with the H 2 /O ratio of the gas. This approach correctly predicts the impacts of changes in a variety of parameters (temperature pressure, feed composition) on the ASF product distribution. In addition, the catalyst phase changes with gas composition and pressure, indicative of an equilibrium response. Equilibrium is of much greater importance to the Fischer–Tropsch system than previously thought, and the decision to use a complex kinetics‐based model rather than a simpler equilibrium based model should be taken with care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".