MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006784833 · doi:10.2298/hemind0206256k

Hydrogen as a spark ignition engine fuel

2002· article· en· W2006784833 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHemijska industrija · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSPARK (programming language)Spark-ignition engineIgnition systemHydrogenLimitingAutomotive engineeringHydrogen vehicleHydrogen fuelHydrogen fuel enhancementIgnition timingHydrogen technologiesAlternative fuelsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceNuclear engineeringInternal combustion engineEngineeringHydrogen economyMechanical engineeringChemistryAerospace engineeringDiesel fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Review is made of the positive features and the current limitations associated with the use of hydrogen as a spark ignition engine fuel. It is shown that hydrogen has excellent prospects to achieve very satisfactory performance in engine applications that may be superior in many aspects to those with conventional fuels. A number of design and operational changes needed to effect the full potential of hydrogen as an engine fuel is outlined. The question whether hydrogen can be manufactured abundantly and economically will remain the limiting factor to its widespread use as an S.I. engine fuel in the future.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.196 · 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