MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416843067 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v18n1p26

Arithmetic Equation for Counting Heat of Formation of Biomass

2025· article· W4416843067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pong Kau Yuen, Cheng Man Diana Lau, Kuok In Gabriel Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldChemistry
Topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionHeat of combustionBiomass (ecology)StoichiometrySimple (philosophy)ThermalRenewable energyStability (learning theory)Dimension (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heat of formation is a critical parameter which represents the stability of matter and helps the understanding of the nature of chemical conversions. Biomass is a renewable energy material, however, there is very limited study on heat of formation of biomass. This situation inhibits study on the thermal nature of biomolecules and the counting of heat of bioconversions. The goal of this research is to formulate a simple mathematical equation for counting heat of formation of biomass. The research is divided into three sections: (i) determination of theoretical higher heating value by an empirical formula of biomass, (ii) identification of the relationship between atomic coefficients of empirical formula and stoichiometric coefficients of organic combustion, and (iii) counting of heat of formation of biomass in a thermochemical organic combustion equation. The research concludes that for any given empirical formula of biomass, the corresponding standard heat of formation can be determined by the established mathematical thermochemical organic combustion equation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analysesFrench-language works237,207