MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106713449 · doi:10.1002/ghg3.2

Ca looping technology: current status, developments and future directions

2011· article· en· W2106713449 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

VenueGreenhouse Gases Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scrubbingCurrent (fluid)Flue gasEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringScale (ratio)Waste managementEngineeringBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental economicsEconomicsElectrical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Calcium looping technology is a promising new technique for high‐temperature scrubbing of CO 2 from flue gas and syngases. Current economic projections suggest it might be able to capture CO 2 at costs of ∼$20/ton of avoided CO 2 . Nonetheless there are questions about the long‐term behavior of natural sorbents in such systems, and there is substantial R&D being done on this technology worldwide to answer questions about whether the performance of natural sorbents can be improved, or whether it would be better to use synthetic ones. The current period is particularly interesting as the first pilot plants and demonstration units capable of operating continuously are now coming on stream, and if successful these will lead to large‐scale industrial demonstrations of the technology in the next 10 to 15 years. © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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