Slurryability and combustion characteristics of coal‐coking wastewater‐slurry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The slurryability, rheological properties, stability, and combustion characteristics of coal water slurry (CWS), made from coking wastewater (CW), deionized water, and Shenhua coal were experimentally studied. Results showed that the solid concentration of coal‐coking wastewater‐slurry (CCWS) could be higher than 60.5 %, which is 0.5–1.5 % lower than that of coal water slurry (CWS). However, the pseudoplastic behaviour of CCWS was greatly evident. The dispersion effects of NNO and NDF were excellent. The stability of CCWS is better than CWS. Moreover, CCWS had lower ignition temperature and burnout temperature, higher combustion characteristic parameters, such as combustion characteristic index S and ignition stability index Rw, and better performance in combustion than CWS. The application of CW for the production of coal water slurry demonstrated the resource utilization of wastewater and improved the combustion characteristic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".