MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154823515 · doi:10.1080/00102200108952145

Pulverized-Coal Combustion in Wall-Protecting-Jets Combustor (WPJC)

2001· article· en· W2154823515 on OpenAlexaff
Biao Zhou, Brian A. Fleck, Jérôme Gauthier, Chengkang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCombustion Science and Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsCombustorCombustionPulverized coal-fired boilerIgnition systemCoalFluentNOxNuclear engineeringStaged combustionCoal combustion productsSlag (welding)Computational fluid dynamicsCombustion chamberMechanicsWaste managementMaterials scienceChemistryAerospace engineeringEngineeringMetallurgyPhysicsHomogeneous charge compression ignition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new type of pulverized-coal combustor, called “Wall-Protecting-Jets Combustor” (hereafter, WPJC) has been proposed, designed and studied with both CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and experimental methods. The WPJC is based on a novel concept in which all inlet jets are along the combustor wall. Pilot combustion experiments were conducted to investigate the combustion performance of WPJC. Two-phase flows and pulverized-coal combustion were simulated to study the mechanism of WPJC using the commercial software FLUENT. The results show that the WPJC has many remarkable advantages: wall-protection by the cold jets without the use of refractory materials; low-temperature and three-stage combustion with low NOx emission; negligible ash/slag-deposition; multiple functions with convenient switching between them; effective adjustment of the combustion intensity and the ignition position.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombustion Science and TechnologySame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207