MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517785750

Field test of sodium bicarbonate and liquid CO2 use for accelerating char bed cooling

2003· article· en· W2517785750 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas M. Grace, Honghi Tran, Masahiro Kawaji

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCharCoolantSodium bicarbonateWaste managementCarbon dioxideEnvironmental scienceChemistryChemical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringOrganic chemistryPyrolysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the Willamette Industries mill in Albany, Oregon, USA, a full-scale trial was carried out on the use of bicarbonate (NaHCO3) and liquid CO 2 to cool a char bed after a simulated emergency shutdown procedure (ESP). The primary objective was to obtain quantitative information on the use of these two coolants and make a side-by-side comparison of their effectiveness on the same bed. The trial provided a fully documented experience in how to use bicarbonate and liquid CO 2 to cool a char bed effectively. Videotapes show what took place as coolants were applied. Data were obtained on the extent of combustible gas formation during and after the ESP and on the effects of infiltration air on bed burning following an ESP. Application: Short, high-volume bursts of coolant are apparently more effective than slow, steady application. Bicarbonate and liquid carbon dioxide appear to be worth the costs and the efforts involved in cooling a hot char bed after an ESP.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207