REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA COMPARATIVA DE CICLOS COMBINADOS DE GERAÇÃO DE ENERGIA BASEADOS EM GASEIFICAÇÃO DE BIOMASSA E GÁS NATURAL/BIOMASSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nos últimos anos, a necessidade e busca global por alternativas aos combustíveis fósseis e o desenvolvimento da utilização de biocombustíveis tornou-se crucial. Dentro das fontes renováveis disponíveis, a biomassa se destaca pela sua abundância e baixo custo. Este estudo apresenta uma revisão sistemática da literatura sobre os ciclos combinados de geração de energia, explorando tanto a ciclos movidos somente a gaseificação de biomassa quanto os ciclos combinados convencionais a gás natural, integrados com sistemas de gaseificação. Uma metodologia específica foi empregada, utilizando o software Start para abranger uma ampla gama de artigos disponíveis nas plataformas de busca. Os principais insights desses artigos foram sintetizados para destacar as recentes contribuições a respeito do tema, visando facilitar o acesso às informações e fomentar o desenvolvimento de futuras pesquisas nesse campo.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".