MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2379807451

Study on Several Measuring Methods of Mercury Emission From Coal-fired Power Plants

2012· article· en· W2379807451 on OpenAlex
An Guo

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the CSEE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)SorbentEnvironmental scienceEconomic shortageCoalAtomic absorption spectroscopyProcess engineeringChemistryWaste managementEngineeringComputer scienceAdsorptionPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring mercury emission concentration from coal-fired power plant accurately is a key point to master the data of total mercury emission and develop the technique of mercury control.At present,the applied methods of measuring mercury emission from power plant mainly include: Ontario hydro method(OHM),continuous emissions monitoring system(Hg-CEMS),carbon sorbent traps(30B),and KMnO4-cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry(HJ 543-2009).The four methods above were described and analyzed,their advantages and shortages were indicated.On these basis,some experimental studies were made to evaluate these methods deeply,the results show that: 30B and Hg-CEMS have perfect consistency in the measurement of total mercury emission;while the measuring results of HJ 543-2009 is lower than 30B.So,due to the rigorous design and strict quality control,the methods applied internationally have high accuracy.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.261 · 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