MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109781480 · doi:10.18280/i2m.190505

Design of an Automatic Detector for Gas Desorption of Coal Samples

2020· article· en· W3109781480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInstrumentation Mesure Métrologie · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorDesorptionGas detectorAutomationCoalProcess engineeringComputer scienceProcess (computing)Environmental scienceEngineeringAdsorptionChemistryMechanical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas content measurement is a common technique in the prevention of coalmine gas disasters. During the measurement, the gas desorption amount of field coal samples needs to be obtained by an instrument working under the principle of gas collection by water displacement (GCWD). The instrument is poorly automated, and susceptible to the influence of subjective factors. To overcome these defects, this paper designs an automatic detector of gas desorption, aiming to realize automated detection. Firstly, the authors analyzed the gas desorption detection process, and clarified the contents and features of the information to be collected. On this basis, the hardware and software systems of the multi-data automatic detector were developed based on digital circuit design and multi-sensor detection. To further improve the measuring accuracy of gas desorption, the multi-range multi-stage mode was introduced to the automatic detector. Application results show that the proposed detector can automatedly collect and store gas desorption amount, ambient pressure, and temperature, greatly improve the degree of automation, and minimize the influence of subjective factors. The popularization of this detector will make gas desorption measurement more efficient and effective, laying a solid basis for the prevention of coalmine gas disasters.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstrumentation Mesure MétrologieSame topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207