MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analyses on Forms of Sulfurin Chinese Yanzhou Coal and Their Transformation during Pyrolysis by X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy

2013· article· en· W2102457186 on OpenAlexaff
Chunhui Fu, J C Wang, Yongfeng Hu, M J Wang, Yicheng Zhang, Liping Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Extraction and Bioleaching
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCharSulfurPyrolysisCoalChemistryXANESDry distillationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceMineralogySpectroscopyEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistryAdsorptionCarbonization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the processof pyrolysis, inherent and the added minerals are the main factors to affectthe transformation and distribution of sulfur in coal. In order to cleanly and efficiently use the inferior coal with high-sulfur content, Yanzhou coal containing 5wt % sulfur was chosen as the sample to do pyrolysis experiments in a fixed-bed reactor. The effect of iron additive on the sulfur forms and their transformation during coal pyrolysis wasstudied in this paper. Fe and S forms in raw coal with (FC) and without (RC) iron additive and their chars from different temperature were determined by XANES, and the gaseous products and total sulfur in char were also considered. The results show that addition of Fe in coal can make more sulfur retained in the char. The transformation of sulfur exists in the entire coal pyrolysis process from 200 to 1000 °C, and more inorganic sulfur was produced during the FC pyrolysis at high temperature (700–1000 °C). FeS existing in the FC char from 1000°C occupies about 62% of the total sulfur in char, but there is almost no FeS in the RC char at 1000 °C. The semi-quantitative analysis of XANES data by LCF fitting will also be discussed.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicMetal Extraction and BioleachingFrench-language works237,207