Patent Analysis of Oil Sands Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil sands are sands containing bitumen similar to crude petroleum. Oil sands had not received enough interest because of the high production cost. However, in the current record-high oil price situation, oil sands are considered as new sources for unconventional oil. In this study, patents analysis was performed for the technologies of production of synthetic crude oil from oil sands. The patents covered were open patents applied in Korea, US, Canada, Japan, Europe, and China. The patents were divided into five detailed technologies; mining and in-situ, extraction, upgrading, fuelling, and other technologies. For oil sands technologies, there have been steady patent applications, since the first patent was applied in 1969. The number of patents applied appeared to be affected by the variation of world oil price. The portion of patents applied in US and Canada was about 90% of the overall patents and it means 05 and Canada have led oil sands technologies. Mining and in-situ technologies, and extraction have been developed actively and occupied more than 77% of the overall patents. However, the number of patents applied for mining and in-situ technologies, and extraction has been constant or started to decrease since 2000. The number of patents applied for upgrading technologies increases recently and it shows the development of upgrading technologies is active now.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".