MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914031896 · doi:10.32964/tj13.7.31

Factors affecting the electrical resistivity of kraft recovery boiler precipitator ash

2014· article· en· W2914031896 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ivan Sretenovic, Masoumeh Farkhondehkavaki, Mark T. Kortschot, Honghi Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueTAPPI Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectrostatic precipitatorElectrical resistivity and conductivityKraft processFly ashChlorideMoistureMineralogyBoiler (water heating)Materials scienceWaste managementChemistryMetallurgyKraft paperComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrical resistivity of ash particles is an important parameter that determines the efficiency of electrostatic precipitators. This systematic study examines the resistivity of recovery boiler precipitator ash as a function of electrical field strength, time of exposure, particle composition, and gas composition and temperature. Synthetic ash and actual ash samples from several pulp mills are used. The results show that most ash samples tested had a resistivity between 109 and 1010 Ω·cm, but one of the samples had an unusually high resistivity, 1012 Ω·cm. The resistivity increases with temperature up to about 140°C, then decreases. At a given temperature, the resistivity decreases with increasing moisture and sulfur dioxide concentration in the gas. Resistivity also increases with an increase in chloride content in the ash, but is not affected by the carbonate, sulfate, and potassium contents. The results imply that recovery boilers burning liquors with high solids and high chloride contents produce ash with higher resistivity, making it more difficult for electrostatic precipitators to capture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTAPPI JournalSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207