MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320863475 · doi:10.1021/ef4023493

Lumped Approach in Kinetic Modeling of Microwave Pyrolysis of Kraft Lignin

2014· article· en· W2320863475 on OpenAlexaff
Sherif Farag, Lamfeddal Kouisni, Jamal Chaouki

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrolysisChemistryYield (engineering)LigninKraft paperKinetic energyGas chromatographyMass spectrometryMicrowaveOrganic chemistryProduct distributionPyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometryChromatographyChemical engineeringMaterials scienceCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents three kinetic models based on a lumping approach to describe the microwave pyrolysis of kraft lignin. The first model considered the formation of the main pyrolysis products, condensable gas, non-condensable gas, and remaining solid, taking into consideration each as an individual lump. The second model investigated the liquid product while dividing the condensable gas into oil and water products. The oil product contains only chemicals, whereas the water product does not contain any chemicals. In the third model, the oil product was separated into four main groups: (1) phenolics, which contain all of the identified phenolic components using a gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analyzer, (2) heavy-molecular-weight components, which contain all of the identified heavy-molecular-weight and undefined components, using GC–MS, (3) non-phenolic aromatics with a single ring, and (4) aliphatics. The comparison of the predicted results using the estimated kinetic parameters to the experimental data showed the high capability of the presented models to estimate the product yield under the selected 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207