Experimental and Simulation Study for the Dissociation Behavior of Gas Hydrates – Part I: CH<sub>4</sub> Hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide A study of methane hydrate dissociation under different temperature and pressure conditions combining in situ and ex situ Raman spectroscopic measurements, confocal microscopic characterizations, powder X-ray diffraction measurements, and molecular dynamics simulations was conducted. Both the experimental and the simulated data show that a distinction must be made between the dissociation behavior above and below the freezing point of water. During the dissociation process at temperatures near or below the freezing point of water, the simple CH 4 hydrates showed well-known self-preservation behaviors. The formation of a quasi-liquid or amorphous phase due to the decompositions of the hydrate cavities at the outer layers of the hydrate crystal terminated the further decomposition of the hydrate phase. For a CH 4 hydrate above the ice point, the dissociation appeared to be initiated at the surface of the hydrate phase. While significant amounts of the hydrate phase were present, the ratio of methane guests in the large and small cages remained constant. After large amounts of the hydrate phase decomposed, potential fragmentation of the remaining hydrate phase into collections of hydrate cages, which resulted in the preferred breakup of the tetrakaidecahedra (5 12 6 2 ), was over the pentagonal dodecahedra (5 12 ).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".