MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996592617 · doi:10.2298/tsci0904061m

Criteria selection for the assessment of Serbian lignites tendency to form deposits on power boilers heat transfer surfaces

2009· article· en· W1996592617 on OpenAlexaff
Milica Mladenović, Rastko Mladenović, Vasilije Manović, Milan Radovanović, Dragoslava Stojiljković

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoiler (water heating)SerbianCoalFoulingThermal power stationEnvironmental scienceWaste managementChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on investigations of ash deposit formation, semi-empirical indicators for slagging and fouling, based on ash chemical composition and its fusion temperature, have been determined. These criteria-indicators, in suggested limits, describe the coals on which they are based (North-American and British) well. However, the experience in the thermal power production sector of Serbia shows that their literal application to domestic coals does not produce satisfactory results. This contribution provides an analysis of applicability and the choice of criteria that are suitable for Serbian coals. The focus of the contribution is on coal slagging indicators, since slagging has much heavier consequences on heat transfer inside the steam boiler, and on boiler operation as a whole. The basis for the analysis of chosen criteria comprises of the results of investigations of four coal fields - Kostolac, Kolubara, Kosovo (Serbia), and Ugljevik (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal ScienceSame topicIron and Steelmaking ProcessesFrench-language works237,207