MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010893236 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20050

Kinetic simulation of a compact reactor system for hydrogen production by steam reforming of higher hydrocarbons

2008· article· en· W2010893236 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
M.A. Rakib, John R. Grace, S.S.E.H. Elnashaie, C. Jim Lim, Yasemin Bolkan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSteam reformingHydrogen productionMembrane reactorNaphthaFluidized bedHydrogenChemical engineeringPlug flowPlug flow reactor modelMethane reformerBubble column reactorChemistryWaste managementMaterials scienceBubbleThermodynamicsContinuous stirred-tank reactorCatalysisOrganic chemistryEngineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A bubbling fluidized bed membrane reactor for steam reforming of higher hydrocarbons is modelled, using n‐heptane as a model component to represent steam reforming of naphtha. The reformer is modelled as a bubbling fluidized bed reactor, consisting of two pseudo phases, a dense phase and a bubble phase, both in plug flow. In situ H2 permselective membranes remove H2 continuously as a pure product, greatly enhancing the H2 yield per mole of heptane fed. A fluidized bed membrane reformer for higher hydrocarbons could give a very compact reactor system combining all the units from the pre‐reformer to the hydrogen purification system in a traditional steam reforming plant into a single unit.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207