Comparative analysis of quality indicators of aviation kerosine, biofuels and their mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern trends of civil aviation development indicate the need to improve fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness of the utilized fuels. The use of conventional jet fuel is meeting to a lesser degree the promising requirements concerning environmental friendliness at a constantly rising price for it. Apart from that, oil reserves are limited. According to many experts, the solution to the growing problems with oil fuels can be application of alternative types of aviation fuel. A number of companies around the world, together with aircraft manufacturers under the significant state support, are actively developing new types of fuel. At the moment the most widespread biofuels consisting of bioethanol are obtained from various plant and animal sources. Alternative fuels should not be inferior to petroleum fuels in its operational properties. A possible transition to them should not require significant costs for the modernization of aircraft and facilities of ground aviation fuel supply. Therefore, an urgent task is to compare the main indicators of the quality of oil fuels, biofuels and their mixtures to assess the possibility of using biofuels on aircraft. A comparative analysis was carried out on some quality indicators. Afterwards the comments were given on the impact of changes of these quality indicators on the performance properties of the fuels. It is shown that according to some quality indicators, biofuels under research have the advantages over oil ones. The relevance of comprehensive study of the performance properties of biofuels is obvious. The improvement of oil fuels and their comprehensive study have been under way for more than 60 years. Biofuels are just beginning their life, so it is reasonable to conduct thorough research on their use in aviation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".