MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2368874414

Study of mercury emission during coal combustion

2002· article· en· W2368874414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kefa Cen

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Scientiae Circumstantiae · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Flue gasCombustionCoalChemistryCoal combustion productsEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementParticulatesFlue
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism of mercury emission during coal combustion were studed.In a bench\|scale pulverized coal furnace. Elemental mercury (Hg\+0), divalent mercury (Hg\+\{2+\}) and particulate mercury in flue gas were captured by Ontario Hydro Method, which is recommended by EPA in USA. The experimental results indicated that the gaseous concentrations in the flue gases were found to be 10—15?μg/m 3, the content of Hg 2+ is about 40%. With a slower cooling rate, mercury conversion ratio was higher. The content of mercury in coal ash was very low,about 20%,which showed that the majority of mercury transferred into flue gas with gaseous state.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Scientiae CircumstantiaeSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207