MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019549175 · doi:10.1177/0270467606290306

A Technical and Economic Review of Solar Hydrogen Production Technologies

2006· article· en· W2019549175 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Wilhelm, Michael Fowler

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFossil fuelRenewable energyHydrogen productionHydrogen economyHydrogenProduction (economics)Environmental scienceHydrogen technologiesNatural resource economicsRenewable fuelsWork (physics)Waste managementBiochemical engineeringChemistryEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen energy systems are being developed to replace fossil fuels–based systems for transportation and stationary application. One of the challenges facing the widespread adoption of hydrogen as an energy vector is the lack of an efficient, economical, and sustainable method of hydrogen production. In the short term, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels will facilitate a transition to the hydrogen economy. In the long term, renewable hydrogen production methods will have to be adopted as resources become scarce, causing the price of fossil fuels to rise. In this work, a number of methods have been considered for the renewable production of solar hydrogen, and thermochemical sulphur-iodine cycles proved to be the most promising. The sulphur-iodine cycles have the highest efficiencies and use widely available reactants with relatively straightforward reaction mechanisms, which make them the most economical and technically feasible option for renewable hydrogen production.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Science Technology & SocietySame topicChemical Looping and Thermochemical ProcessesFrench-language works237,207