MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098761030

Performance Evaluation of H-25 Gas Turbine 96 Performance Evaluation of H-25 Gas Turbine — with Low-NOx Combustor Installed at SaskPower’s Queen Elizabeth Power

2015· article· en· W7098761030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustorElectricity generationThermal power stationGenerator (circuit theory)Power (physics)Gas turbinesSteam turbinePower station
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OVERVIEW: As concerns about global environmental problems grow, electric power plants that utilize high efficiency gas-turbine generators are being actively sought after. Accordingly, at SaskPower’s Queen Elizabeth Power Station in Canada, Hitachi, Ltd. has implemented a re-powering system that combines Hitachi’s H-25 gas-turbine generators with the plant’s existing steam-turbine generators. This re-powering system consists of H-25 generators combined with OTSG (once-through steam generator: also known as once-through boiler). The H-25 gas-turbine generator incorporates a low-NOx emission combustor that meets the demand for low environmental impact. The combustor is based on low-NOx emission technology that Hitachi has accumulated during the development of low-NOx emission combustors for large-scale gas turbines. And it was shown during the commissioning that the low-NOx emission H-25 gas-turbine generators installed at the Queen Elizabeth Power Station produce NOx emission at the level of 25 ppm (at 15 % O2). In addition, the performance of the turbines was demonstrated to be satisfactory; that is, trouble-free operation down to-30°C is possible, and generated gross output power and thermal efficiency easily meet the design specifications. It is thus considered that the H-25 gas-turbine generator incorporating a high-thermal-efficiency low-NOx emission combustor will be an effective response to the growing demands for environmental-protection measures—such as prevention of global warming and reduction of NOx emissions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207