MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206030255 · doi:10.3390/fuels2040024

Interaction Behavior of Biogenic Material with Electric Arc Furnace Slag

2021· article· en· W3206030255 on OpenAlexafffund
Xianai Huang, Ka Wing Ng, Louis Giroux, Marc Duchesne, Delin Li, Ted Todoschuk

Bibliographic record

VenueFuels · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsArcelorMittal (Canada)
FundersNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsSlag (welding)SteelmakingRaw materialElectric arc furnaceMetallurgyScrapCarbon fibersMaterials sciencePyrolysisOil shaleWaste managementComposite numberComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric arc furnaces (EAFs) are used for steel production, particularly when recycling scrap material. In EAFs, carbonaceous material is charged with other raw materials or injected into molten slag to generate foam on top of liquid metal to increase energy efficiency. However, the consumption of fossil carbon leads to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). To reduce net GHG emissions from EAF steelmaking, the substitution of fossil carbon with sustainable biogenic carbon can be applied. This study explores the possibility of the substitution of fossil material with biogenic material produced by different pyrolysis methods and from various raw materials in EAF steelmaking processes. Experimental work was performed to study the effect of biogenic material utilization on steel and slag composition using an induction melting furnace with 50 kg of steel capacity. The interaction of biogenic material derived from different raw materials and pyrolysis processes with molten synthetic slag was also investigated using a tensiometer. Relative to other biogenic materials tested, a composite produced with densified softwood had higher intensity interfacial reactions with slag, which may be attributed to the rougher surface morphology of the densified biogenic material.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuelsSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207