MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145260880 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20551

Characterisation of the mixture product of ether‐soluble fraction of bio‐oil (ES) and bio‐diesel

2011· article· en· W2145260880 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Xiaoxiang Jiang, Jianchun Jiang, Zhaoping Zhong, Naoko Ellis, Quan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiesel fuelThermogravimetric analysisFraction (chemistry)Fourier transform infrared spectroscopyChemistryEtherVolume (thermodynamics)LigninVolume fractionMixing (physics)Pyrolytic carbonChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryMaterials sciencePyrolysisPhysical chemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A method of upgrading the properties of bio‐oil with bio‐diesel has been taken in this article. Firstly, the unpopular pyrolytic lignin fraction is extracted from bio‐oil using ether, the rest ether‐soluble fraction of bio‐oil, named ES is mixed with bio‐diesel according to emulsification. The optimal conditions for obtaining a stable ES/bio‐diesel mixture are with octanol surfactant dosage of 3% by volume; initial ES to bio‐diesel ratio of 4:6 by volume; stirring intensity of 1200 rpm; mixing time of 15 min and mixing temperature at 30°C. Additionally, selected fuel properties such as viscosity, water content and acid number are measured for characterising the ES/bio‐diesel mixture. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) has been used to further evaluate the thermal properties. Data from the TGA and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analyses confirm the presence or absence of certain group of chemical compounds in the mixture. Proton and carbon atoms assignments are further confirmed by 1 H NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) and 13 C NMR analysis, respectively. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207