MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002247563 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20496

Numerical simulation of underground coal gasification using the CRIP method

2011· article· en· W2002247563 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnderground coal gasificationCoalCoal combustion productsCombustionPetroleum engineeringPorous mediumProcess (computing)Coal miningComputer simulationFlow (mathematics)Process engineeringCoal gasificationMass flow rateEnvironmental sciencePorosityWaste managementMechanicsEngineeringComputer scienceSimulationGeotechnical engineeringChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A three‐dimensional simulation of the Underground coal gasification (UCG) process is studied in terms of the heat and mass transport phenomena and chemical kinetics in a coal seam during coal combustion by applying the controlled retracting injection point technique. The STARS module of the Computer Modelling Group software is used in this study. The gas species flow rate, cavity shapes, and temperature profile in the coal seam during gasification are investigated. The main motivation behind this study is to provide a simulation methodology by using a comprehensive porous media flow approach to understand the critical aspects of the UCG process.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.253
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