MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285555883 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22462

Char combustion of ellipsoidal particles in a hot gas with fluctuating temperature

2016· article· en· W2285555883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Li, Jian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCharCombustionParticle (ecology)Biomass (ecology)SphericityParticle sizeMaterials scienceChemistryChemical engineeringThermodynamicsComposite materialOrganic chemistryPhysicsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Char combustion of biomass particles is a significant thermo‐chemical conversion process. The char combustion process of biomass particles with gas temperature fluctuation is numerically investigated. Considering the non‐spherical shape of biomass particles, a fully algebraic expression of burning enhancement factor is theoretically derived to modify the char combustion rate of ellipsoidal particles. Four solid biofuel samples (cynara, pinewood, willow, and cardoon) are chosen for the calculations. The instantaneous mass variations and char combustion rates of biomass particles are calculated under different particle sphericities. Different kinetic parameters of biomass samples lead to various effects of gas temperature fluctuation on char combustion. The gas temperature fluctuation generally enhances the char combustion rate. Increasing the fluctuation frequency of gas temperature has no effect on char combustion. Under the same particle surface area, the char combustion rate is enhanced with decreasing particle sphericity.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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