MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321207964 · doi:10.1021/ef3006405

Hydroprocessing of Biomass-Derived Oils and Their Blends with Petroleum Feedstocks: A Review

2012· review· en· W2321207964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaw materialBiomass (ecology)Renewable fuelsBiofuelEnvironmental scienceRenewable energyPetroleumHydrodesulfurizationPyrolysisWaste managementAnimal fatPulp and paper industryBiomass fuelsChemistryEngineeringCatalysisAgronomyOrganic chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns over the declining availability of light conventional crude oils coupled with increasing energy demands and growing environmental concerns have sparked a global interest in the use of renewable oils as potential feedstocks for biofuel production. Over the past 2 decades, a considerable number of research studies in the area of renewable oil processing has been conducted around the world. The present review summarizes recent progress in processing biomass-derived oils, such as pyrolysis bio-oils, edible/inedible vegetable oils, and animal fats, and co-processing these oils with petroleum feedstocks using conventional hydroprocessing technologies, such as hydrotreating and hydrocracking. The main focus of this review is to provide an understanding of the effects of biomass feedstocks on process operation, catalyst performance and deactivation, feedstock conversion, and product yield and quality.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
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