Modification of petroleum coke by different additives and the impact on anode properties
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
Abstract Anodes, which provide the carbon required for aluminum production, are made from dry aggregates (petroleum coke, rejected anodes, and butts) with coal tar pitch as the binder. Good quality anodes require good interaction between coke and pitch, and this relies on good wetting properties. The objectives of this work are to analyze the wetting properties of four different cokes with and without modification using an additive and to test the effect of the modified coke on anode properties. A FTIR study was done to identify functional groups in non‐modified and modified coke samples since they play an important role on coke‐pitch interactions. The wetting tests were done using the sessile‐drop method to measure the contact angle between coke and pitch. The results showed that the additive improved the wettability of all four cokes by pitch. The least wettable coke was chosen to produce anodes. For anode production, the entire dry aggregate is modified. The additive was mixed with the dry aggregate using two different approaches (one day earlier and 5 min before mixing). The anodes were characterized before and after baking. The early treatment with the additive was found to be better for the modification of dry aggregate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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