Ecological Replacements of Ozone-Depleting Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons have appeared in the natural environment in steadily increasing amounts over several decades as a consequence of their growing use, chiefly as refrigerant, foam blowing agent and solvent, prompted by their unique properties and low cost. It is recognised that anthropogenic emissions of the above compounds, which are referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS's), are partly responsible for depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer and the so-called greenhouse effect. The photodecomposition of halogenomethanes in the stratosphere produces significant amounts of chlorine atoms, leading to the decay of atmospheric ozone, which allows increased levels of biologically damaging UV radiation to reach the Earth's surface. The discovery of the above phenomenon has initiated efforts towards the withdrawal of ODS. Nowadays, it is accepted that fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) are the main source of the chlorine that is eroding Earth's protecting ozone, and their role is of great global concern. In spite of the fact production CFCs has been banned since 01.01.1995 and their use prohibited since 01.01.1996, the depletion of stratospheric ozone will continue because large amounts of these class compounds are still in use. Therefore, the recovery and subsequent destruction of the CFCs still in use is a logical next step, in particular the conversion of the CFC's into useful products is a challenging task. At present CFCs are being replaced by hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC's) and in perspective by hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's), before better replacements are found. The environmental impact of CFC replacements is considered in terms of their ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP) and ability to form noxious degradation products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".