MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391381424 · doi:10.1002/cben.202300049

Risk Identification and Safety Technology for Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas Reforming

2024· article· en· W4391381424 on OpenAlexaff
Lele Feng, Y. T. Gu, Jiabao Pang, Liangliang Jiang, Jie Liu, Hang Zhou, Biao Wang, Saeideh Babaee

Bibliographic record

VenueChemBioEng Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersWuhan University of Science and TechnologyWuhan UniversityShuangchuang Program of Jiangsu ProvinceGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProduction (economics)Natural gasIdentification (biology)Hydrogen productionEnvironmental scienceBusinessWaste managementHydrogenEngineeringChemistryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The hydrogen production from natural gas has advantages of low investment, low carbon emission, and high hydrogen production rate. This paper briefly describes the technical overview of hydrogen production from natural gas reforming and identifies its risk factors. According to the dangerous characteristics of high reaction temperature, easy leakage of reaction medium, flammability, and explosion in the process, the intrinsic safety of the process is discussed in combination with relevant research and industrial experience. The safety requirements of key equipment and materials are introduced in detail, followed by the optimization methods of process safety that can be taken in the engineering process. Besides, the accident prevention measures for emergency shutdown and fire explosion are summarized. Finally, the future research demands are put forward from the perspective of research and development, which is instructive for the safe hydrogen production from natural gas in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemBioEng ReviewsSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207