MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152510574 · doi:10.1002/aic.11020

Biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor: Experiments and modeling

2006· article· en· W2152510574 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

VenueAIChE Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWood gas generatorFluidized bedPyrolysisFreeboardGas compositionEquivalence ratioThermodynamicsChemistryWaste managementChemical engineeringNuclear engineeringMaterials scienceCombustionEngineeringCombustorOrganic chemistryPhysicsCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A model is presented for the gasification of beech wood particles in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier (BFBG). The model encompasses the hydrodynamics of the solid and gas phases as well as the different reaction kinetics. It also accounts for the freeboard where additional homogeneous reactions take place. The influential impact of the pyrolysis step on the final composition of produced fuel gas was demonstrated by applying two different kinetic models for pyrolysis. Model results are compared with the experimental work of this study and other published results on wood gasification in BFBG. Effects of equivalence ratio (ER), steam to biomass ratio (SB), bed temperature, feed location, and mass transfer between the countercurrent regions (K w ) on the gas composition of product fuel gas are studied. The model shows good agreement with the experimental results. © 2006 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2006

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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