MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225117560 · doi:10.1080/02786826.2022.2070055

High-throughput generation of aircraft-like soot

2022· article· en· W4225117560 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Una Trivanovic, Georgios A. Kelesidis, Sotiris E. Pratsinis

Bibliographic record

VenueAerosol Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSootCombustionMaterials scienceAgglomerateJet (fluid)AerosolGeometric standard deviationParticulatesAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental scienceChemistryEnvironmental chemistryComposite materialThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-throughput, laboratory units for generation of aircraft-like soot are needed to quantify and understand the impact of such emissions on public health and climate change due to the high costs and limited access to aircraft engines. Enclosed spray combustion of jet fuel is used here to generate high soot concentrations, up to 255 mg/m3, three orders of magnitude higher than those typically obtained by widely used soot generators that use vapor-fed flames. This is attributed mostly to the use of real jet fuels. The large mass concentrations enable routine characterization of the soot specific surface area (SSA) and pore size distribution (PSD) by N2 adsorption. The geometric mean mobility diameter, d¯m, of soot agglomerates was systematically varied from 15 to 180 nm by varying the equivalence ratio (EQR) at constant fuel feed rates, while the organic to total carbon (OC/TC) ratio is low (<20%) at all conditions. The geometric mean primary particle (PP) diameter, d¯p, standard deviation, σg,p, and mass-mobility exponent, Dfm, were hardly altered in that EQR range. These measured Dfm and σg,p indicate that soot PPs were sinter-bonded by surface growth, in agreement with aircraft emissions literature. Most importantly, soot made at EQR ≤ 1.34 has mainly small pores (<2 nm) and similar morphology (Dfm = 2.52 ± 0.17), SSA (160 − 239 m2/g), OC/TC (< 20%), d¯m (15 − 61 nm) and d¯p (14 nm) with those from high-thrust aircraft emissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerosol Science and TechnologySame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207