Identification of a New Experimental Method to Measure the Induction Time for Gas Hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gas hydrate formation process is divided in two main phases: the initial nucleation and the following massive growth phase.The time required for the production of a quantifiable quantity of hydrates is referred as "induction time".Different solutions have been proposed to measure this interval; however, the low accuracy of the measure and the difficulties in evaluating it in the mediumscale lab reactors, have been not still solved.The most diffused technique consists of the visual confirmation of the production of a numerable quantity.In this work, a new alternative approach was proposed and experimentally validated.Being the formation process exothermic, the formation of the target quantity of hydrates leads to the appearance of peaks in temperature in a confined environment.These peaks cannot be exploited, due to their casual occurrence, associated to the stochastic nature of the process.Differently, the quantity of heat produced, can be directly used to calculate the moles of hydrates formed; thus, it allows to characterize the induction period for the process.In this research, the induction time was evaluated during the formation of methane and carbon dioxide hydrates, in order to detect any potential difference between the two species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".