MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087188295 · doi:10.1021/ef100604z

Steam Gasification of Bio-Oil and Bio-Oil/Char Slurry in a Fluidized Bed Reactor

2010· article· en· W2087188295 on OpenAlexaff
Masakazu Sakaguchi, A. P. Watkinson, Naoko Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharPyrolysisFluidized bedChemical engineeringCarbon fibersSlurryWood gas generatorChemistryBiomass (ecology)Space velocityWaste managementPulp and paper industryCatalysisMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryCoalComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bio-oil/char mixtures and whole bio-oil from rapid pyrolysis of woody biomass are potential feeds for synthesis gas production via steam gasification. A 7.8 cm diameter, atmospheric pressure, fluid bed gasifier was constructed and operated with either a nickel-containing steam reforming catalyst or silica sand as bed material. Both bio-oil and a slurry of 80 wt % bio-oil and 20 wt % char were tested as feedstocks. Effects of bed temperature, steam to carbon molar ratio, and space velocity on gaseous component yields and carbon conversion are reported for both feedstocks using catalytic and noncatalytic bed material. At the moderate temperatures (<840 °C) of the experiments, carbon conversion is incomplete, and some mixed hydrocarbons are present in the produced gases. Yields of the main gas constituents are compared with an equilibrium model which was modified to correct for these two factors. Observations are made on stability and attrition issues with the catalyst.

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 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207