The Challenge of Water Competition in Physical Adsorption of CO<sub>2</sub> by Porous Solids for Carbon Capture Applications – A Short Perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With ever‐increasing efforts to design sorbent materials to capture carbon dioxide from flue gas and air, this perspective article is provided based on nearly a decade of collaboration across science, engineering, and industry partners. A key point learned is that a holistic view of the carbon capture problem is critical. While researchers can be inclined to value their own fields and associated metrics, often, key parameters are those that enable synergy between materials and processes. While the role of water in the chemisorption of CO 2 is well‐studied, in this perspective, it is hoped to highlight the often‐overlooked but critical role of water in assessing the potential of a physical adsorbent for CO 2 capture. This is a challenge that requires interdisciplinarity. As such, this document is written for a general audience rather than experts in any specific discipline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it