MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551238254 · doi:10.1063/1.4920971

Formation of methane nano-bubbles during hydrate decomposition and their effect on hydrate growth

2015· article· en· W1551238254 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharareh Bagherzadeh, Saman Alavi, John A. Ripmeester, Peter Englezos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsMethaneHydrateDissociation (chemistry)AgglomerateClathrate hydrateSupersaturationChemical engineeringChemical physicsChemistryBubbleMole fractionNano-Molecular dynamicsMaterials sciencePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryComputational chemistryMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular dynamic simulations are performed to study the conditions for methane nano-bubble formation during methane hydrate dissociation in the presence of water and a methane gas reservoir. Hydrate dissociation leads to the quick release of methane into the liquid phase which can cause methane supersaturation. If the diffusion of methane molecules out of the liquid phase is not fast enough, the methane molecules agglomerate and form bubbles. Under the conditions of our simulations, the methane-rich quasi-spherical bubbles grow to become cylindrical with a radius of ∼11 Å. The nano-bubbles remain stable for about 35 ns until they are gradually and homogeneously dispersed in the liquid phase and finally enter the gas phase reservoirs initially set up in the simulation box. We determined that the minimum mole fraction for the dissolved methane in water to form nano-bubbles is 0.044, corresponding to about 30% of hydrate phase composition (0.148). The importance of nano-bubble formation to the mechanism of methane hydrate formation, growth, and dissociation is discussed.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations147
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207