MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of ethanol addition in gasoline on soot formation characteristics in diffusion flames

2015· article· en· W6961166650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSootGasolineCombustionDiffusionLaminar flowEthanolDiffusion flameEthanol fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel liquid fuel combustion apparatus that can produce stable laminar diffusion flames was designed and set up. Gasoline-ethanol blends of 0%, 20%, 50% and 85% of ethanol in volume were used as fuel. Soot concentration profiles under atmospheric pressure were measured with an optical diagnostic technique to examine how adding ethanol to gasoline affects soot formation. The test results show that these gasoline-ethanol blends can generate stable diffusion flames with visible heights remaining at(50± 1) mm with increased amount of ethanol in gasoline under the condition of a fixed carbon flow rate of 6.05 g/h, that soot concentrations at different heights are reduced to different degrees, and that the total soot decreases almost linearly. The totals of soot in the flames fuelled by blends of 20%, 50%, and 85% ethanol are reduced by 16.20%, 37.77% and 61.66% respectively against that in the gasoline flame.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207