MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2364725369

5-Lumped kinetic model for F-T synthesis wax hydrocracking reaction

2013· article· en· W2364725369 on OpenAlex
Cao Fahai

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

VenueHuagong xuebao · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsomerizationKinetic energyCrackingWaxThermodynamicsChemistryApproximation errorCatalysisMaterials sciencePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryMathematicsPhysicsApplied mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the 9-lumped kinetic model and the total kinetic model as well as the mechanism of the F-T synthesis wax hydrocracking process,a 5-lumped kinetic model was established.On the basis of the concept of isomerization factor,the experimental results combined with isomerization reaction simulation and the introduction of cracking probability function,the original 9-lumped kinetic model cracking assumption was improved.Cracking probability function made the model more close to the actual hydrocracking process.There were seven reactions in the 5-lumped reaction kinetic model.Two kinds of kinetic models were compared by using the experimental results over the catalyst consisting of platinum(0.6%,mass)supported on amorphous silica alumina modified with H-β.The average relative error between the 5-lumped kinetic model calculations and experimental values was 3.95%.When conversion was higher than 90%,average relative error was below 0.8%.From the comparison,product selectivity could be well predicted by the 5-lumped model.

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 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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.182 · 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