MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1943947751 · doi:10.3968/5098

Why Crude Oil Vapor Pressure Should Be Tested Prior to Rail Transport

2014· article· en· W1943947751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannes Pichler, Josef Lutz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVapor pressureBubble pointPetroleum engineeringVolatility (finance)Crude oilHydrostatic testChemistryEngineeringEnvironmental scienceBubbleMechanical engineeringOrganic chemistryMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent crude oil rail car accidents have forced US and Canadian authorities to issue Emergency Testing Orders to ensure safe transportation of crude oils. One crucial parameter in meeting these safety requirements is the testing of the vapor pressure (VP) of crude oil. This paper explains the impact of highly volatile components inside the crude oil on the vapor pressure measurement. It describes typical VP measurement errors and discusses guidelines and technology for proper crude oil classification. It offers measurement data to show the effect of sample outgassing and to describe the impact of temperature changes and the vapor-liquid ratio (V/L) on vapor pressure test results. The second part of the paper discusses methods to measure the True Vapor Pressure (TVP) and Bubble Point Pressure (BPP) of Crude Oils for safety purposes. Key words : Crude oil; Volatility testing; Safety data sheet; Hazardous material regulations (HMR); Emergency testing order; Vapor pressure (VP); ASTM D6377; Reid vapor pressure (RVP); ASTM D323; True vapor pressure (TVP); Vapor-liquid ratio (V/L); Bubble point pressure (BPP); Floating piston cylinder (FPC)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207