MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087743624 · doi:10.1021/ef060566u

Reforming of Isooctane over Ni−Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> Catalysts for Hydrogen Production:  Effects of Catalyst Preparation Method and Nickel Loading

2007· article· en· W2087743624 on OpenAlexaff
Hussameldin Ibrahim, Prashant Kumar, Raphael Idem

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalysisCalcinationNickelSpace velocityDispersion (optics)HydrogenSelectivityHydrogen productionMaterials scienceChemical engineeringCatalyst supportInorganic chemistryChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of hydrogen via the partial oxidation of isooctane was evaluated using a variety of Ni−Al 2 O 3 catalysts . The effects of catalyst preparation method, nickel loading, and calcination temperature, as well as the reaction operating conditions (such as reaction temperature and space velocity), on the performance of the Ni−Al 2 O 3 catalysts prepared were evaluated. These catalysts were thoroughly characterized to establish the relationship between catalyst characteristics and catalyst preparation conditions. Results showed that a high BET surface area enhances nickel dispersion, which, together with high catalyst reducibility, help to enhance the catalyst performance, in terms of isooctane conversion, H 2 selectivity, and turnover number (TON). In each preparation method, it was not possible to obtain high catalyst reducibility together with high nickel dispersion. Thus, the trends observed were manifestations of the opposing tendencies of these characteristics. Also, an increase in calcination temperature was determined to have a detrimental effect on catalyst performance and resulted in an increase in the amount of carbon deposited during the reaction.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207