URBAN WOOD/COAL CO-FIRING IN THE BELLEFIELD BOILERPLANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the second quarter, important preparatory work was continued so that the experimental activities can begin toward the end of the third quarter or early in the fourth quarter. The Environmental Questionnaire was submitted to the U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), after thorough review by the Bellefield Boiler Plant (BBP). Letters were submitted to the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to seek R and D variances for permits at the BBP, the J. A. Rutter Company (JARC), and Emery Tree Service (ETS) for their portion of the project. Memoranda of understanding were executed by the University of Pittsburgh (University) with the BBP, JARC and ETS. Construction wood was collected from Thompson Properties. Discussions were held with the BBP and Energy Systems Associates (ESA), the BBP's engineering consultant. Presentations describing the University of Pittsburgh Wood/Coal Co-Firing Program were provided to the American Chemical Society (ACS), the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the Upgraded Coal Interest Group (UCIG) of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Engineering Center for Environment and Energy (ECEE) of the University of Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Coal Conference (PCC), the Pennsylvania Ethanol Workshop, BioEnergy 2000 and the Kick-Off Meeting of the Biomass Cofiring Opportunities Solicitation Projects.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".