Adsorption characteristics of coal in constant-pressure tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adsorption characteristics of coal have traditionally been studied using crushed coal specimens. When adsorption tests are run on a crushed coal specimen, adsorption kinematics are not involved and therefore the equilibrium of gases is attained rapidly. In this study, the kinematics of CO2 adsorption have been examined on intact coal and crushed coal specimens using experimental methods where pressure rather than volume of the adsorbing gas was kept constant. To understand the adsorption characteristics of the intact specimen, adsorption isotherms for the crushed coal specimen are required from similar test conditions. The crushed coal adsorption isotherms measured in this study are very similar in shape. However, they indicate a slightly larger capacity than those measured in other studies even for coals of similar rank. The average difference between the total adsorption capacity of crushed coal and the intact coal is about 7 mL of adsorbed CO2 per gram of coal at 4000 kPa. Although the difference in adsorption capacities of intact and crushed coal is small, it is important to understand the impact of adsorption kinematics to reach the final adsorption on the intact coal specimen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".