MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042207502 · doi:10.1021/ie0510526

Waste Cooking OilAn Economical Source for Biodiesel:  A Review

2006· review· en· W2042207502 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodieselTransesterificationDiesel fuelRaw materialVegetable oil refiningWaste managementBiodiesel productionEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryCooking oilRenewable energyRenewable fuelsBiofuelChemistryMethanolEngineeringOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiesel (fatty acid methyl ester) is a nontoxic and biodegradable alternative fuel that is obtained from renewable sources. A major hurdle in the commercialization of biodiesel from virgin oil, in comparison to petroleum-based diesel fuel, is its cost of manufacturing, primarily the raw material cost. Used cooking oil is one of the economical sources for biodiesel production. However, the products formed during frying, such as free fatty acid and some polymerized triglycerides, can affect the transesterification reaction and the biodiesel properties. Apart from this phenomenon, the biodiesel obtained from waste cooking oil gives better engine performance and less emissions when tested on commercial diesel engines. The present paper attempts to review methods for the transesterification of waste cooking oil and the performance of biodiesel obtained from waste cooking oil in a commercial diesel engine. The paper also examines the basic chemistry involved during frying and the effects of the products formed in the frying process on biodiesel quality.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.150 · 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