Relationship between weathering, elemental sulfur formation and sulphide self-heating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some sulphides have a propensity to self-heat that under certain conditions can lead to hazardous environments, from noxious gas emission (SO 2 ) to sulfide ignition.Self-heating results from oxidation that appears to proceed through three distinct stages: stage A (below 100C) associated with production of elemental sulfur, stage B (above 100C) which involves oxidation of the sulfur, and stage C (above 350C), the direct oxidation of the sulfide (ignition) which is independent of the oxidation history of the sample.Elemental sulfur is one of the oxidation products known to form in stage A that fuels the self-heating in stage B. In the first part of this thesis, the relationship between elemental sulfur formation in stage A , and the self-heating in stage B was investigated through the use of the self-heating apparatus.Two site-specific samples were tested under different stage A conditions, and then tested at stage B.It was generally observed that increasing the temperature and the duration of stage A increased the formation of elemental sulfur which correlated with increased self-heating in stage B. Exceptions were observed with the samples tested at high stage A temperatures (55~70C); the set air flow rate (100mL/min) seemed insufficient for the samples to fully oxidize.Samples showed re-activation when repeatedly tested and continued to heat until all fuel was exhausted.The second part of the thesis then investigated the total heat that a sample can generate, along with the cumulative elemental sulfur Professor James A. Finch, thank you for the wonderful opportunity under your supervision, for the discussions, advice and patience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".