MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080614180 · doi:10.2202/1542-6580.1303

Hydrogen Production in Fluidized Beds with In-Situ Membranes

2005· article· en· W2080614180 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

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKing Saud UniversityAuburn University
KeywordsHydrogen productionSteam reformingProcess engineeringFluidized bedMembrane reactorFlexibility (engineering)HydrogenProcess (computing)Waste managementEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactors (FBMR) offer significant advantages for steam reforming and the production of hydrogen. Potential advantages include higher yields by reducing thermodynamic equilibrium limitations, process intensification by combining three vessels into one, reduced temperatures of operation, countering the adverse effects of pressure, virtually eliminating catalyst diffusional limitations, high productivity per unit volume of reformer, and flexibility in using alternative feedstocks. Realization of the FBMR process for hydrogen production requires that a number of unusual challenges in reactor design be met. This paper discusses the technical challenges and outlines key factors which are being addressed in providing the membranes, reactor configuration and integrity, catalyst, energy integration and operating conditions needed to establish an economically viable FBMR process.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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