MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248366752 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.07.01.006

Reduction a Particulate Matter of Diesel Emission by the Use of Several Oxygenated Diesel Blend Fuels

2014· article· en· W4248366752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Alahmer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiesel fuelOxygenateParticulatesDiesel engineDiesel exhaust fluidVolume (thermodynamics)Materials scienceWaste managementWinter diesel fuelEnvironmental scienceDiesel exhaustPulp and paper industryChemistryPetrol engineDiesel cycleAutomotive engineeringOrganic chemistryCombustionEngineeringPhysicsThermodynamicsCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxygenated diesel fuel blends have a prospective effectiveness to reduce a particulate matter (PM) emissions and powerfully to be an effective alternative instead of diesel fuel. This manuscript investigates the emission characteristics of four combinations of oxygenated diesel fuel blends in terms of ethanol, TGME, Glyme and Diglyme. Two blended fuels containing 5% and 15 % by volume for each oxygenated additives was prepared. Pure diesel fuel was used as a base fuel for all oxygenated diesel blends. The experiments were conducted using four cylinders, four stroke compression ignition Toyota Hilux Pickup of engine capacity (2494 cc) model 2006, inline DOHC 16 Valve. The experimental results showed that (i) the higher engine speed is produced lower PM emissions; (ii) the PM emitted by all the oxygenated diesel blends is significantly lower than of the corresponding pure diesel fuel; (iii) the increase of oxygenated percentage in the diesel blends, the PM emission decreases; (iv) A maximum and minimum of PM reduction was occurred when the engine fueled by 15 % by volume for ethanol and by 5 % by volume for TGME respectively.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207