MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128013666 · doi:10.1002/cben.202100002

A Review on Glassy and Rubbery Polymeric Membranes for Natural Gas Purification

2021· review· en· W3128013666 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemBioEng Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMembrane Separation and Gas Transport
Canadian institutionsPolymer Research Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembraneMaterials scienceGas separationPolymerPolymeric membraneChemical engineeringNatural gasSynthetic membranePolymer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Polymer chemistryComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A comprehensive overview of membrane technology used for natural gas purification and other gas separation applications including methods, materials, and results described in previous studies is presented. Different membrane categories are elaborated thoroughly followed by comparisons made between glassy and rubbery polymeric membranes. Various approaches to improve membrane separation performance, such as incorporation of inorganic fillers and blending technique, are discussed. Gas separation in different membranes, e.g., glassy/rubbery polymer blend membranes, mixed matrix membranes, and polymeric blend mixed matrix membranes, are considered. Adopted techniques by researchers to solve existing issues in membrane fabrication and performance are explained in detail.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.270 · 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