MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024945073 · doi:10.1002/cssc.200800015

Electrochemical Processing of Carbon Dioxide

2008· article· en· W2024945073 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemSusChem · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFormateFormic acidElectrochemistryChemistryCarbon dioxideMethanolElectrochemical reduction of carbon dioxideMethaneYield (engineering)ElectrosynthesisInorganic chemistryChemical engineeringCarbon monoxideMaterials scienceCatalysisOrganic chemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With respect to the negative role of carbon dioxide on our climate, it is clear that the time is ripe for the development of processes that convert CO(2) into useful products. The electroreduction of CO(2) is a prime candidate here, as the reaction at near-ambient conditions can yield organics such as formic acid, methanol, and methane. Recent laboratory work on the 100 A scale has shown that reduction of CO(2) to formate (HCO(2)(-)) may be carried out in a trickle-bed continuous electrochemical reactor under industrially viable conditions. Presuming the problems of cathode stability and formate crossover can be overcome, this type of reactor is proposed as the basis for a commercial operation. The viability of corresponding processes for electrosynthesis of formate salts and/or formic acid from CO(2) is examined here through conceptual flowsheets for two process options, each converting CO(2) at the rate of 100 tonnes per day.

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 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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