MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385543734 · doi:10.1080/15361055.2023.2224315

Oxygen Stream Management in a CECE Process

2023· article· en· W4385543734 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

VenueFusion Science & Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAmmonia Synthesis and Nitrogen Reduction
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrubberElectrolysisOxygenWater vaporHeavy waterHydrogenTritiumCatalysisAir separationElectrolysis of waterChemistryWaste managementEnvironmental sciencePhysicsNuclear physicsEngineeringElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the combined electrolysis and catalytic exchange (CECE) process, the electrolyzer produces both hydrogen and oxygen streams. Hydrogen is typically fed to the bottom of the liquid-phase catalytic exchange column. The oxygen stream, however, is processed and afterward is either fed back to the trickle bed recombiner in heavy water detritiation or released to the exhaust stack in light water detritiation. This paper discusses the handling of the oxygen stream both in heavy and light water detritiation CECE processes. Oxygen leaving the electrolyzer has a trace amount of tritium gas in it as well as water vapor (due to diffusion across the membrane). Trace tritium is converted to vapor using a catalytic converter and then either scrubbed using an oxygen vapor scrubber or captured in a dryer bed. This study analyzes and compares the different options for handling the oxygen stream in a CECE process.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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