Effect of electrolytes on the self-protection of natural gas hydrate decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents an experimental study of methane hydrate decomposition with different concentrations of electrolytes Na+ and K+, with the aim of exploring the electrolyte's behaviour characteristics shown in its effect on the self-protection effect of methane hydrate during decomposition. The study used an experimental device for hydrate synthesis and decomposition. It focuses on the effect of electrolytes on the self-protection effect of methane hydrate during the self-protection effect during methane hydrate decomposition. (i) Na+ ions have an inhibitory effect on self-protection, whereas K+ ions do not have a significant effect. (ii) There is a negative correlation between the hydrate self-protection effect and the concentration of Na+ ions. However, an excessive Na+ concentration can inhibit the hydrate gas production rate. (iii) The synergistic system of Na+ and K+ ions has a better inhibitory effect on the hydrate's self-protection effect than a single Na+ ion solution. As the concentration of the synergistic system increased, the hydrate gas production rate was not inhibited. However, in contrast to a single Na+ ion solution, when the concentration of the synergistic system was too high, the methane hydrate gas production rate was not inhibited because of the coexistence of cations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".