MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550714188 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22744

Dynamic simulation of coupled transmission processes and reaction mechanisms in porous calcined limestone

2016· article· en· W2550714188 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mingchun Li, Hao Yang, Lanting Song, Yusheng Wu, Jiyan Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Liaoning ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsThermogravimetric analysisCalcinationPorosityParticle sizeMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)DiffusionParticle-size distributionChemical engineeringAtmospheric temperature rangeTransmission electron microscopyMineralogyThermodynamicsChemistryNanotechnologyComposite materialGeologyCatalysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The particle reaction model and dynamic reaction characteristics of limestone over a wide particle size range from 0.15 to 10 mm were studied by thermogravimetric analysis and nitrogen adsorption‐desorption techniques. A clear boundary between the sintered porous product layer and the undecomposed part was found by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) analysis. A dynamic coupling model considering the effects of varied pore structure and transport resistances was established based on the appropriate particle reaction model, which allowed us to predict the decomposition ratio and reaction regimes in a broad range of particle sizes. The dynamic characteristics of pore size distribution and reaction mechanisms were discussed. Over the defined particle size range and calcination temperature range, the diffusion of gaseous product through porous product layer will become the rate determining factor as the ratio of ( r 0 ‐ r c )/ r 0 corresponding to 25 % Damköhler number above 0.35.

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 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicChemical Looping and Thermochemical ProcessesFrench-language works237,207