MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240296573 · doi:10.2172/881910

Early Entrance Coproduction Plant

2004· report· en· W4240296573 on OpenAlexaff
Mushtaq Ahmed, John H. Anderson, Earl R. Berry, Troy M. Raybold, Lalit S. Shah, Kenneth A. Yackly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCoal and Coke Industries Research
Canadian institutionsThinkpath Engineering Services (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoproductionWork (physics)Power stationPlan (archaeology)CoalPhase (matter)EngineeringManufacturing engineeringWaste managementEngineering managementProcess engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this project is the three phase development of an Early Entrance Coproduction Plant (EECP) which uses petroleum coke to produce at least one product from at least two of the following three categories: (1) electric power (or heat), (2) fuels, and (3) chemicals. The objective is to have these products produced by technologies capable of using synthesis gas derived from coal and/or other carbonaceous feedstocks. The objectives of Phase I were to determine the feasibility and define the concept for the EECP located at a specific site; develop a Research, Development, and Testing (RD&T) Plan for implementation in Phase II; and prepare a Preliminary Project Financing Plan. The objective of Phase II is to implement the work as outlined in the Phase I RD&T Plan to enhance the development and commercial acceptance of coproduction technology that produces high-value products, particularly those that are critical to our domestic fuel and power requirements. The work performed under Phase II will resolve critical knowledge and technology gaps on the integration of gasification and downstream processing to coproduce some combination of power, fuels, and chemicals from coal and/or other carbonaceous feedstocks. The objective of Phase III is to develop an engineering design package and a financing and testing plan for an EECP located at a specific site. The project's intended result is to provide the necessary technical, economic, and environmental information needed by industry to move the EECP forward to detailed design, construction, and operation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.231 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoal and Coke Industries ResearchFrench-language works237,207