MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090585158 · doi:10.1002/ceat.201400503

Techno‐Economic Comparison of a 7‐MW<sub>th</sub> Biomass Chemical Looping Gasification Unit with Conventional Systems

2015· article· en· W2090585158 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

VenueChemical Engineering & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical looping combustionFluidized bedSyngasPressure swing adsorptionWood gas generatorWaste managementOxygenIntegrated gasification combined cycleAir separationBiomass (ecology)Process engineeringChemistryChemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceAdsorptionHydrogenEngineeringCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The chemical looping process is an alternative method to provide conventional gasification (CG) systems with the required oxygen. The syngas produced via chemical looping has a higher calorific value than that generated by a conventional process with air. For comparison, a conventional gasification unit with pure oxygen (CGPO) and a chemical looping gasification (CLG) system were simulated with Aspen Plus. The CGPO reactor consisted of a bubbling fluidized bed and sand as bed material with oxygen supplied via a pressure swing adsorption unit. The CLG comprised a bubbling fluidized‐bed gasifier working in parallel with a fast fluidized‐bed oxidizer. The total capital investment (TCI) of the CLG unit was higher than that of the CGPO unit but the annual operating cost of the former was less which repays the difference in TCI in less than six years.

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)0.000
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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