MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124929150 · doi:10.5539/eer.v4n2p64

Influence of Biomass Pyrolysis Temperature, Heating Rate and Type of Biomass on Produced Char in a Fluidized Bed Reactor

2014· article· en· W2124929150 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toshiyuki Iwasaki, Seiichi Suzuki, Toshinori Kojima

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Environment Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrolysisCharSoftwoodBiomass (ecology)BagasseHardwoodFluidized bedPulp and paper industryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringChemistryComposite materialBotanyOrganic chemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomass pyrolysis experiments were carried out in a fluidized bed reactor (FBR) and produced char yields were measured for 3 kinds of softwoods, 3 kinds of hardwoods, 2 kinds of herbaceous plants and 3 kinds of agricultural residues. Pyrolysis temperature range was between 300 °C and 1200 °C, and heating rate was fast (100–1000 °C/s) or slow (10 °C/min). After the pyrolysis, produced char was collected with bed particles and only the char was separated from bed particles by sieving. Surface of the produced char was observed by SEM to confirm bed particles adhesion behavior on the surface of char. Char-bed particles (alumina particles) adhesion were observed mainly under fast pyrolysis condition for most of the biomass samples. Char yields by fast pyrolysis were much lower than those by slow pyrolysis of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (hardwood), Japanese cypress (softwood), Switchgrass (herbaceous plant) and Bagasse (agricultural residue), respectively. In the case of fast pyrolysis condition, char yields from softwood species were lower than those from other biomass species.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and Environment ResearchSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207