MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015566775 · doi:10.1021/ef800326q

Comparative Study of Ni-based Mixed Oxide Catalyst for Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane

2008· article· en· W2015566775 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

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalysisMethaneCarbon dioxide reformingCarbon dioxideChemistrySyngasOxideMethane reformerChemical engineeringCarbon fibersInorganic chemistryMixed oxideMaterials scienceSteam reformingOrganic chemistryComposite numberHydrogen production

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide reforming of methane (CDRM) to synthesis gas was studied over various Ni-based catalysts. It is shown that the mixed oxide supports CeO 2 −ZrO 2, CeO 2 −Al 2 O 3, and La 2 O 3 −Al 2 O 3, prepared using surfactant, exhibit a high catalytic activity and stability for CDRM. Temperature program reduction (TPR) results demonstrate that the presence of CeO 2, ZrO 2, or La 2 O 3 leads to the enhancement of the Ni reducibility compared to Al 2 O 3, which is an important indicator of high activity and stability of these Ni catalysts for CDRM. Our thermodynamic calculations indicate that CeO 2 could react with CH 4 to produce synthesis gas, and then CO 2 might reoxidize CeO 2− x to its oxidation state. Furthermore, CeO 2 might help in gasification of deposited carbon to inhibit the carbon formation and therefore improve catalyst stability. The presence of alumina tends not to affect the stability of the catalyst as well.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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