MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245221515 · doi:10.1038/npre.2008.1741.1

Carbon Dioxide Splitting: A Summary of the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature

2008· preprint· en· W4245221515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Precedings · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersCarbon sequestrationAtmosphere (unit)Greenhouse gasEnvironmental chemistryNanotechnologyChemistryComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysicsMeteorologyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have stimulated significant global research and development efforts regarding the reduction in CO2 emissions from all point and non-point sources. In addition to technologies that do not use carbon feedstocks or which capture and "permanently" store CO2 (i.e., sequestration), there is considerable worldwide interest among the academic, industrial, and government communities regarding methods for dissociating waste stream carbon dioxide molecules into their constituent carbon and oxygen ("CO2 splitting") atoms as a final "end-of-pipe" treatment option. The splitting of carbon dioxide has also been actively discussed and researched in the space exploration and extraterrestrial colonization programs for several decades. This document summarizes the peer-reviewed open source scientific literature regarding carbon dioxide splitting.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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