MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006450736 · doi:10.1155/2014/390261

Potential of NMR Spectroscopy in the Characterization of Nonconventional Oils

2014· article· en· W2006450736 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Majid, Indu Gedara Pihillagawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fuels · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrolysisPyrolysis oilRaw materialCharacterization (materials science)HydrocarbonNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyCoalExtraction (chemistry)ChemistrySpectroscopyElemental analysisCarbon-13 NMROrganic chemistryMaterials scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NMR spectroscopy was applied for the characterization of two biomass based pyrolysis oil samples. The samples were extracted in various solvents and the extracts were investigated by both 1 H and 13 C NMR spectroscopy. Subsequent evaluation of the integrated analytical data revealed chemical information regarding semiquantitative estimation of various functional groups. This information could not have been obtained readily from the individual spectroscopic techniques. Semiquantitative estimation of the various functional groups allowed a comparison of the extraction efficiency of these groups in various solvents. The method is based on the premise that although the number of individual molecular species in pyrolysis oil liquid is large, most of these species are composed of a limited number of functional groups. The methodology provided information on the concentration of chemical functionalities that are potentially useful for synthetic modifications and may help to guide the use of pyrolysis oil as a chemical feedstock. The approach described is expected to be generally applicable to complex mixture of hydrocarbon oils such as bio-oils, oil sands bitumen, and coal pyrolysis oils.

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 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207