MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613754011 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22887

Steam reforming of tar model compounds over ni supported on CeO<sub>2</sub>and mayenite

2017· article· en· W2613754011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benedetta de Caprariis, Maria Paola Bracciale, Paolo De Filippis, Asbel David Hernandez, A. Petrullo, Marco Scarsella

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalysisNon-blocking I/Otar (computing)Steam reformingChemical engineeringMaterials scienceToluenePhenolTransition metalRedoxChemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryHydrogen production

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ni‐CeO 2 , Ni/Co‐CeO 2 , and Ni‐Ca 12 Al 14 O 33 were synthesized by the auto‐combustion method and tested as catalysts in the steam reforming of tar model compounds in a fixed bed reactor. Toluene, phenol, and n ‐heptane were chosen as representative of the different classes of organic compounds that can be found in tar. The catalysts were characterized by X‐ray diffraction (XRD) and temperature‐programmed reduction (TPR). From XRD analysis it was observed in all the synthesized catalysts the presence of two phases, NiO and CeO 2 or Ca 12 Al 14 O 33 . A stronger interaction of NiO with mayenite structure, compared to that of NiO with CeO 2 , was also shown by TPR analysis. The best performances in terms of conversion and stability were obtained when Ni supported on mayenite was used, confirming the higher redox properties of this support that confers to the catalyst a better resistance to deactivation by carbon deposition. The lower performances observed for Ni supported on CeO 2 in terms of conversion and activity were substantially improved by partial substitution of Ni with Co, confirming its ability to increase the Ni catalytic activity and to enhance the reforming of oxygenated species. The apparent kinetic parameters calculated for all the catalysts and the model compounds confirm the obtained experimental results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207