MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220869313 · doi:10.2118/208914-ms

Hydrogen Production and Char Formation Assessment through Supercritival Gasification of Biomass

2022· article· en· W4220869313 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Mohamadi‐Baghmolaei, Parviz Zahedizadeh, Abdollah Hajizadeh, Sohrab Zendehboudi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharCorncobBiomass (ecology)Supercritical fluidGibbs free energyChemical engineeringYield (engineering)Process engineeringHydrogen productionPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceHydrogenChemistryThermodynamicsPyrolysisOrganic chemistryAgronomyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The massive potential in biomass gasification could satisfy the rising energy demand. A promising technology for sustainable hydrogen production is supercritical water gasification of biomass (SCWG). This study proposes a new model to assess gas yields and char formation through SCWG. To this end, a thermodynamic approach is utilized to model the reactor, assuming the equilibrium condition. The impact of catalyst on the SCWG is also involved in the new model, considering a deviation term for the Gibbs free energy of solid char. Two different feedstocks, including sunflower and corncob, are assessed toward SCWG. The newly developed model considerably improves gas yields and char formation predictions considering the experimental data. Compared to the non-modified modeling strategy, the sunflower and corncob's gas yield and char formation are improved by 85.37 and 62.52, respectively. The sensitivity results indicate that temperature and feed concentration substantially impact the gas yields and char formation, while pressure is less impactful.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207