MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993399186 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20211

Agglomeration of biomass fired fluidized bed gasifier and combustor

2009· article· en· W1993399186 on OpenAlex
Vichuda Mettanant, Prabir Basu, James W. Butler

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsGreenfield Research (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomies of agglomerationFluidized bedBiomass (ecology)CombustionFluidized bed combustionWood gas generatorWaste managementUrban agglomerationEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceCoalChemical engineeringChemistryEconomicsEngineeringEconomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Agglomeration is a major problem in biomass fired fluidized bed combustors and gasifiers. Mechanism, reduction options and detection techniques of agglomeration are reviewed. Agglomeration may be classified broadly into three types: defluidization induced agglomeration, melt‐induced agglomeration and coating‐induced agglomeration. Sodium and potassium content of the biomass are the major contributors to the agglomeration in biomass fired fluidized beds. Higher temperature, lower fluidizing velocity and coarser bed particles also increase the risk of agglomeration. Alternative bed materials, additives or the co‐combustion of biomass with other fuels can reduce agglomeration potential of a fluidized bed. Two agglomeration detection techniques are discussed: controlled fluidized bed agglomeration and early agglomeration recognition system.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.165 · 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