MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403300057 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25520

The combustion mechanism of aluminium in the steam/carbon dioxide mixed atmosphere

2024· article· en· W4403300057 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoyan Qian, Yanwu Ji, Jiquan Wang, Baozhong Zhu, Minggao Xu, Yunlan Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAtmosphere (unit)Carbon dioxideMechanism (biology)CombustionAluminiumEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersWaste managementMaterials scienceMetallurgyChemistryEngineeringMeteorologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ignition and combustion characteristics of aluminium (Al) in the steam/carbon dioxide (H 2 O/CO 2 ) mixed atmosphere were calculated by using a close homogeneous catch reactor and premixed laminar flame‐speed of CHEMKIN‐PRO. The effects of initial reaction temperature and H 2 O/CO 2 ratios on the system temperature, products, and ignition delay time were explored. The main reaction paths were analyzed by the temperature sensitivity. Al (l) entered the system with a pronounced phase transition and only one heating stage, but there are two heating stages in the Al (g) system. The reaction of Al in the H 2 O/CO 2 mixed atmosphere has a positive effect on the ignition delay time of the system. The high contents of CO 2 in the H 2 O/CO 2 mixed atmosphere can increase the maximum temperature of system and decrease the ignition delay time. Temperature sensitivity analysis shows that AlO, Al 2 O, and AlOH are important intermediate products, and Al 2 O 2 is the main substance that produces Al 2 O 3 . The dominant reaction path is Al → AlOH→AlO → Al 2 O → Al 2 O 2 → Al 2 O 3 . In addition, when the initial temperature was 2300 K, the laminar flame velocity was calculated to reach 35.6 m/s.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207