MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059366968 · doi:10.1021/ie8013605

Determination of Distributed Activation Energy Model Kinetic Parameters Using Simulated Annealing Optimization Method for Nonisothermal Pyrolysis of Lignin

2008· article· en· W2059366968 on OpenAlexafffund
Thilakavathi Mani, Pulikesi Murugan, Nader Mahinpey

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPyrolysisActivation energyLigninKinetic energyThermogravimetric analysisThermodynamicsMaterials scienceAnnealing (glass)ChemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distributed activation energy model (DAEM) has been shown to be more descriptive of the pyrolysis reaction than other applicable models. In this study, the temperature dependency of the preexponential factor has been included in the DAEM. The model equation has been solved using Simpson’s 1/3 rule, and the kinetic parameters were determined using an optimization method. Simulated annealing method has been used to determine the DAEM kinetic parameters for the nonisothermal pyrolysis of lignin using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) data. The nonisothermal pyrolysis of lignin was conducted at three different heating rates of 5, 10, and 15 °C/min under nitrogen atmosphere. Predicted results from the optimum kinetic parameters have been compared with the experimental data. The DAEM equation predicts the experimental data very well for different heating rates.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations93
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicThermal and Kinetic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207