MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093998751 · doi:10.1021/ie071310u

Solid Looping Cycles:  A New Technology for Coal Conversion

2008· article· en· W2093998751 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical looping combustionCoalSyngasCoal gasificationProcess engineeringCombustionEnvironmental scienceIntegrated gasification combined cycleCalcium loopingCoal combustion productsWaste managementCalcinationFluidized bedChemistryEngineeringCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines both oxygen looping cycles (otherwise known as chemical looping combustion), and lime-based CO2 looping cycles, where calcined limestone is used for in situ CO2 capture. There has been a rapid rise in the amount of research carried out recently, and both technologies are likely to see practical application in the near future. However, these technologies urgently require demonstration at the large pilot-plant level − in the case of chemical looping cycles for use with high-pressure syngas of the type likely to be produced by current coal gasification technologies and in the case of CO2 looping cycles both for combustion and gasification applications with coal. Both approaches have potential for application in schemes for H2 production, but these have not been considered here, although such applications will also inevitably follow in the medium to long term.

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 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.241 · 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