MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334677698 · doi:10.1021/je1012247

CO<sub>2</sub> Absorption in Aqueous Piperazine Solutions: Experimental Study and Modeling

2011· article· en· W2334677698 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Bougie, Maria C. Iliuta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryFugacityPiperazineSolubilityThermodynamicsAqueous solutionActivity coefficientPartial pressureTernary numeral systemTernary operationAmine gas treatingEquation of stateAtmospheric temperature rangeVapor pressureVirial coefficientAbsorption (acoustics)Flory–Huggins solution theoryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, new solubility data of CO 2 in aqueous piperazine (Pz) solutions were measured over a temperature range from T = (287.1 to 313.1) K and for amine concentrations from m = (0.10 to 2.00) mol·kg −1 . The CO 2 partial pressure was kept within P CO 2 = (0.11 to 525.17) kPa using a vapor−liquid equilibrium (VLE) apparatus based on a static-synthetic method. These experimental data and those found in the literature for the ternary system Pz−CO 2 −H 2 O were correlated using a model combining the virial equation of state to calculate the fugacity coefficients with a modified Pitzer's thermodynamic model for the activity coefficients. With the new extended interaction parameters β i, j 0 and β i, j 1 that cover a wide range of temperature, CO 2 partial pressure, and amine concentration, the model is able to correlate satisfactorily the available reliable experimental solubility data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations79
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207