MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950416288 · doi:10.5286/ukerc.edc.000797

High Hydrogen - Experimental results, detailed analysis, evaluation and recommendations

2017· article· en· W6950416288 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsSemtech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionDuct (anatomy)Full scaleTurbulenceFlow (mathematics)Mixing (physics)Equivalence ratioHydrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The report contains details for the complete project. This project commenced in 2011 and has completed works at the end of 2016.There have been three previous sections to this project: a literature review, laboratory scale experiments and a circular duct phase; this last phase incorporated a scale heat recovery steam generating boiler. The project has been shown to be able to simulate several of the relevant features of a full scale HRSG system using the current scaled test rig and to demonstrate the development of flame through the system and the generation of pressures, which are believed to be relevant to the understanding of how these will develop at full scale.The commissioning tests carried out have given confidence in the overall operation of the test rig in terms of achieving appropriate gas temperatures, injected fuel mixtures and equivalence ratios; exhaust/injected fuel mixing and HRSG purging times ahead of actual ignition. Detailed flow measurements at selected positions within the system have confirmed the uniformity of the flow in these regions and have provided background turbulence data for future flow and combustion modelling.

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)0.011
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.015

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207