MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055444611 · doi:10.1002/ceat.201200669

Dual Effect of Low‐Dosage Poly(Ethylene Oxides) on Methane Hydrate Formation

2013· article· en· W2055444611 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Sina, K. Nazari, Mahboobeh Mohammad-Taheri, Mohammad Reza Moradi

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrateMethaneNucleationClathrate hydrateChemistryIsochoric processEthyleneChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Time‐dependent isochoric formation of methane hydrate was investigated in the presence of low‐dose poly(ethylene oxides) (PEOs). The effect of different molecular weights of PEO on methane hydrate nucleation time and storage capacity was studied and compared. Kinetic measurements revealed a dual effect of PEO, including inhibition and stabilization effects, on methane hydrate formation. The nature and type of the effect arises from the difference in molecular weights and concentration ranges of PEOs. These parameters directly affect the nucleation time and storage capacity of methane hydrate. Generally, in comparison with pure water, PEO improved the storage capacity of methane hydrate. PEO (1000 kD) at a concentration of 0.5 wt % exhibits a significant kinetic inhibitory performance. However, it was an efficient low‐dosage hydrate stabilizer at a concentration of 0.25 wt %, along with producing gas‐rich methane hydrate suitable for gas fuel storage and transportation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Engineering & TechnologySame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207