MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963984883 · doi:10.1002/aic.16724

An intrinsic kinetic model for liquid‐phase photocatalytic hydrogen production

2019· article· en· W2963984883 on OpenAlexafffund
M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, Mehrzad Feilizadeh, Maria C. Iliuta

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicAdvanced Photocatalysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesUniversité Laval
KeywordsHydrogen productionHydrogenPhotocatalysisKinetic energySubstrate (aquarium)CatalysisMaterials scienceExperimental dataBiological systemChemistryPhase (matter)KineticsChemical engineeringThermodynamicsProcess engineeringEngineeringMathematicsOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A kinetic study was accomplished to describe the photocatalytic production of hydrogen in liquid phase. A reaction mechanism and a kinetic model were proposed to predict the rate of hydrogen production, which is a function of light intensity, catalyst loading, substrate concentration, and time. To assess the capability of the proposed model, glycerol and ethanol were selected as representative hydrogen sources (substrates). The experimental data performed under different operating conditions, based on Box–Behnken experimental design, were used to train the developed kinetic model, optimize the parameters using genetic algorithms and check its accuracy. The analysis confirms the validity of the model under different operating conditions. In addition, the ability of the model to predict the rate of hydrogen production for other substrates, photocatalysts, and operating conditions was confirmed by comparing model predictions with experimental data from literature.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicAdvanced Photocatalysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207