Shock Tube Study of Methyl Formate Ignition
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The autoignition of methyl formate mixed with oxygen/argon and oxygen/nitrogen behind reflected shock waves is studied. Experiments are carried out at average pressures of 2, 4, and 10 atm over a temperature range of 1053−1561 K. The effects of equivalence ratio, dilution, and the nature of the bath gas are investigated. An empirical correlation for the ignition delay is proposed. Using this correlation, methyl formate ignition is compared to published methane and ethane ignition data. It is found that methyl formate ignites more readily than methane but less readily than ethane. The experimental data is also compared with ignition delays predicted by two different methyl formate kinetic mechanisms. It is observed that both mechanisms agree with measured ignition delays at 10 atm but deviate significantly from experimental data at lower pressure. In order to obtain closer agreement between the models and experiment at lower pressures, further analysis of possible fuel consumption pathways and improved estimation of (pressure-dependent) reaction rates should be investigated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it