Benchmarking the North American Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Industry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benchmarking the North American Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Industry (abstract) Atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) boilers are a mature, well established, and valuable technology. Their fuel flexibility, combustion efficiency, and relatively low emission levels have seen them attract new interest in recent times. In order to ensure plant sustainability it is important for AFBC plant operators to maintain a high level of operational performance and plant efficiency. Benchmarking is a tool that can aid the attainment of superior performance and efficiency levels. It has widespread use throughout many industries and allows managers to gauge how their company performs relative to similar firms and identify areas that are in need of improvement. Sponsored by Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO), this paper presents a set of North American AFBC industry benchmarks for the year of 2009. Focusing on both circulating and bubbling bed boilers, the benchmarks are intended to enhance the industry’s overall efficiency and sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it