MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317583073 · doi:10.1021/ef200546v

Pyrolysis of Oat Straw and the Comparison of the Product Yield to Wheat and Flax Straw Pyrolysis

2011· article· en· W2317583073 on OpenAlexaff
Thilakavathi Mani, Pulikesi Murugan, Nader Mahinpey

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrolysisStrawCharYield (engineering)Biomass (ecology)Pulp and paper industryChemistryPyrolysis oilAgronomyCarbon fibersMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite materialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the results of experimental studies on the pyrolysis of oat straw in a fixed-bed reactor at different temperatures are described. The pyrolysis products are analyzed, and the effect of the temperature on the product yield is also discussed. The bio-oil yield increased at low temperatures, while gas production was enhanced at high temperatures during oat straw pyrolysis. The highest percentage of bio-oil (40.5%) was produced at 450 °C, while the maximum gas production (42%) took place at the temperature of 550 °C. To evaluate the pyrolysis product yield, comparisons were made between the oat, wheat, and flax straws that were pyrolyzed in the lab under the same experimental conditions. A comparison of the biomasses based on the pyrolysis product yield illustrates that flax straw is capable of producing more hydrogen (33% of the outlet gas) and carbon-rich char (42% of the biomass) when compared to other biomasses. Oat straw is considered a better biomass for bio-oil production (46% of the volatiles) compared to wheat and flax straws in these particular experimental conditions.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207