MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764326561 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23032

Iridium promoted Ni‐Co/Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>‐ZrO<sub>2</sub> catalyst for dry reforming of methane

2017· article· en· W2764326561 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anis H. Fakeeha, Ahmed A. Ibrahim, Yasir Arafat, Hanan Atia, Ahmed E. Abasaeed, Ahmed S. Al‐Fatesh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeanship of Scientific Research, King Saud UniversityKing Saud University
KeywordsCatalysisMethaneCobaltNickelIridiumCarbon dioxide reformingChemistrySyngasInorganic chemistryCobalt oxideNuclear chemistryMethane reformerHydrogen productionSteam reformingOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract CO 2 reforming of methane to produce synthesis gas was examined in a fixed bed reactor, using a combined nickel‐cobalt based catalyst supported on a mixed oxide (modified alumina with ZrO 2 ) obtained by the sol‐gel method. The loading of nickel and cobalt was kept at 0.0500 g/g (1:1), while the amount of Ir varied between 0.0000 to 0.0100 g/g. The reforming reactions were performed at 700 °C. The time on stream profile for 360 min showed that all catalysts were very active and stable. The promoter doping of 0.0250 g/gCo‐0.0250 g/gNi‐X g/g Ir/(Al 2 O 3 ‐ZrO 2 ) catalysts augmented the activity regarding the CH 4 and CO 2 by 20 %. The catalysts were characterized by means of TGA, TPR, TPD, XRD, and SEM. The TGA and TPR results showed that the promoter depressed the carbon deposition and upgraded the reducibility of the active metals in that order. While the TPD analysis illustrated the basic sites of the catalyst are of medium strength.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207