Performance of Clay Wood Cook Stove: An Analysis of Cost and Fuel Savings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of cooking energy cost and efficiency of improved woodfuel clay cookstoves in Nigeria have been considered in this study. Two improved wood burning clay cookstove models were compared to the 3-stone fire stove using the water boiling test and controlled cooking test. The following parameters: specific fuel consumption (SFC), thermal efficiency, ebulution time and cooking energy cost were considere as key indicators for comparison. The results show that the fire power for the cold starts phases were 7.72KW, 8.59KW and 9.78KW for the stove with grate, modified stove without grate and the 3-stone open fire (TFS) respectively. The thermal efficiencies ranges between 19-35%, 13.8-26.8% and 11.7-22.8% for the cold start, hot start and simmer phases for mud stove with grate (MSWG), mud stove no grate (MSNG) and three stone open fire (TFS) respectively. MSWG, showed the highest savings potential on wood fuel consumption with the lowest total wood cost of N127.80 and sfc of 1.632Kg of fuel/kg of food cooked. While MSNG and TFS, have a total wood fuel cost and SFC of N207.70 , N269.20, and 2.141, 1.632kg of fuel/kg of food cooked respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".