MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737918899 · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/76/1/012008

Computational Studies for Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) Process

2017· article· en· W2737918899 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Institute of Technology BombayUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsUnderground coal gasificationProcess (computing)CoalPetroleum engineeringProcess engineeringCoal gasificationComputational fluid dynamicsCoal miningFlow (mathematics)Environmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringWaste managementMechanicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is a well proven technology in order to access the coal lying either too deep underground, or is otherwise too costly to be extracted using the conventional mining methods. UCG product gas is commonly used as a chemical feedstock or as fuel for power generation. During the UCG process, a cavity is formed in the coal seam during its conversion to gaseous products. The cavity grows in a three-dimensional fashion as the gasification proceeds. The UCG process is indeed a result of several complex interactions of various geo-thermo-mechanical processes such as the fluid flow, heat and mass transfer, chemical reactions, water influx, thermo-mechanical failure, and other geological aspects. The rate of the growth of this cavity and its shape will have a significant impact on the gas flow patterns, chemical kinetics, temperature distributions, and finally the quality of the product gas. It has been observed that there is insufficient information available in the literature to provide clear insight into these issues. It leaves us with a great opportunity to investigate and explore the UCG process, both from the experimental as well as theoretical perspectives. In the development and exploration of new research, experiment is undoubtedly very important. However, due to the excessive cost involvement with experimentation it is not always recommended for the complicated process like UCG. Recently, with the advent of the high performance computational facilities it is quite possible to make alternative experimentation numerically of many physically involved problems using certain computational tools like CFD (computational fluid dynamics). In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying physical phenomena, modeling strategies have frequently been utilized for the UCG process. Keeping in view the above, the various modeling strategies commonly deployed for carrying out mathematical modeling of UCG process are described here in a concise manner. The available strategies are categorized in several groups and their salient features are discussed in order to have a good understanding of the underlying physical phenomena. This would likely to be a valuable documentation in order to understand the physical process of UCG and will pave to formulate new and involved modeling and simulation techniques for computationally modeling the UCG process.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.227 · 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