Study of Thermooxidation of Oil Shale Samples and Basics of Processes for Utilization of Oil Shale Ashes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A circular economy becomes an object of actual discussions as a real alternative to the existing linear economy system. The problem is actually in Estonia also, first of all in the sector of heat and power production which based mainly on the combustion of local solid fossil fuel—Estonian oil shale (OS) resulting in the formation of ~5–6 million tons of OS ashes annually. The thermooxidative decomposition of OS samples from different deposits and estimation of the possibilities of utilization of OS ashes formed at both—pulverized firing (PF) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) of Estonian OS were studied. The thermal analysis combined with evolved gas analysis (EGA) methods like Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) and mass-spectroscopy (MS) was exploited. It was established that the differences in the thermal behaviour of different OS samples are caused by the differences in the chemical matrix of organic matter, chemical and mineralogical composition of the inorganic part of OS, and morphology of samples. It was also found that moderate grinding of OS ashes with simultaneous moderate water treatment notably improved the SO2 binding efficiency of cyclone ash, and that the strength and leachability characteristics of granulated OS ashes strongly depend on the post-granulation treatment conditions allowing to increase the soil neutralizing ability of the granulated products. This overview was based on our investigations carried out during the last fifteen years.
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) | 0.000 | 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".