Evaluación comparativa de un nuevo gas refrigerante patentado frente a cuatro convencionales en condiciones reales de operación domésticas e industriales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El impacto medioambiental de los refrigerantes ha obligado a buscar alternativas que no dañen la capa de ozono, regulado desde la Cumbre de Montreal, ni generen altas emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, regulado por el Protocolo de Kioto. El reto de estos nuevos refrigerantes es conseguir un buen rendimiento generando el mínimo impacto en el medioambiente. Se ha comparado el rendimiento, las propiedades de idoneidad, los parámetros tecno-económicos y el impacto medioambiental de cuatro refrigerantes convencionales que están presentes en el mercado con una nueva mezcla patentada en condiciones de climatización doméstica y de refrigeración industrial, ambos casos en verano e invierno. Los cuatro refrigerantes convencionales que se utilizan como comparación con la nueva mezcla refrigerante son dióxido de carbono y amoniaco como fluidos refrigerantes naturales, y R-1234ze y R-454C como fluidos refrigerantes antropogénicos. Se demuestra que la mezcla patentada es una buena alternativa en climatización doméstica en invierno.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".