MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095627189

Comparative analysis of mint gas with R-12 and R-134 refrigerants

2013· article· en· W7095627189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRefrigeration and Air Conditioning Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefrigerantOzone layerGlobal warmingMontreal ProtocolGlobal-warming potentialOzone depletionEnvironmentally friendlyWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract-Today, environment safety has become an important aspect of the industries and people in common. The global warming, climate change ozone layer depletion and many other environmental disasters have prompted a need to look for environmental friendly operations and process for fulfilling our basic and other needs such as transportation, production of materials etc. This paper aims at development of one such eco friendly system for domestic refrigerators. The commonly used domestic refrigerators use the gas which either deplete the ozone layer or contribute in the global warming in the same as CO2 does. This work consists of using a hydrocarbon gas mixture known as mint gas which does not deplete ozone layer, is eco friendly, and can be used in the commonly used refrigerators without any significant change in the system. Efforts have been made to include various aspects to get the maximum knowledge about the refrigerant. Refrigerant physical and chemical properties of different refrigerants are included in this paper. This paper summarizes analysis of refrigerant used in domestic refrigerator with the mint gas. It present tabulated global warming potential and other environmental data for different refrigerants. This paper also discuses on the C.O.P (coefficient of performance). Keywords-Global warming, ozone depletion potential refrigerants, coefficient of performance, specific power, domestic refrigerator.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRefrigeration and Air Conditioning TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207