MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300529083 · doi:10.13052/dgaej2156-3306.2311

Performance Simulation of Combined Cycle with Kalina Bottoming Cycle

2008· article· en· W4300529083 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

VenueDistributed Generation & Alternative Energy Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermodynamic and Exergetic Analyses of Power and Cooling Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombined cycleTurbineWorking fluidWork (physics)Rankine cycleNuclear engineeringSeparator (oil production)Environmental scienceThermodynamicsProcess engineeringPower (physics)EngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kalina cycle has potential for improved performance re-garding electrical ef ficiency, specific power output and cost of electricitycompared with conventional technology because the mixture of workingfluids enables ef ficient energy recovery. Thermodynamic analysis hasbeen carried out for combined cycle with the Kalina bottoming cycle.In this work, the identi fied key parameters for the Kalina cycle are tur-bine inlet condition (pressure, temperature and concentration), separatortemperature and ambient temperature. The effect of these parameters onexergy ef ficiency of combined cycle is examined. The combined cycleefficiency increases with the increase in the turbine inlet pressure, andthe same decreases with increases in ambient temperature, turbine inlettemperature and its concentration. Heat recovery from exhaust decreaseswith increases in the separator temperature, and it does not alter theoutput of the combined cycle. The ef ficiency of the cycle is very sensi-tive to the turbine inlet concentration and ambient temperature.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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