MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547869422 · doi:10.1080/17597269.2015.1118782

Gasification of biomass in a circulating fluidized bed based calcium looping gasifier for hydrogen-enriched gas production: experimental studies

2016· article· en· W2547869422 on OpenAlexafffund
Bishnu Acharya, Animesh Dutta, Prabir Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphDalhousie UniversityGreenfield Research (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCalcium loopingCalcium oxideSorbentFluidized bedChemical looping combustionFluidized bed combustionSawdustSyngasBiomass (ecology)HydrogenCalciumWaste managementWood gas generatorCarbon dioxideHydrogen productionChemical engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryAdsorptionEngineeringMetallurgyCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents experimental studies of circulating fluidized bed based calcium looping gasification (CFB-CLG) system for producing hydrogen-enriched gas from biomass. The merit of this system is that it captures carbon dioxide (CO2) during the process using the inexpensive and easily available sorbent calcium oxide (CaO). The process also regenerates the sorbent internally and produces a relatively pure stream of CO2. A laboratory scale calcium looping gasification system based on a circulating fluidized bed was developed and tested. Experiments conducted to gasify sawdust in the CFB-CLG system shows that it could produce a gas with 81% hydrogen and CO2 as low as 5%. Exergy analysis of the calcium looping system is done and the efficiency is 78.77%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuelsSame topicChemical Looping and Thermochemical ProcessesFrench-language works237,207