Fouling Characteristics of a Light Australian Crude Oil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Australian crude oils, which generally contain little asphaltenes, nevertheless give rise to fouling in refinery pre-heat trains. In this research, the fouling of a series of such crude oils and their blends is being assessed. The present work focuses on thermal fouling resulting from heating Gippsland crude oil at moderate temperatures. The oil is maintained under nitrogen at a pressure of 379 kPa and re-circulated at bulk temperatures of 80–120ˆC through an electrically heated annular probe at velocities in the range 0.25–0.65 m/s with surface temperatures from 180–260ˆC. Experiments are run for periods up to ninety hours at constant heat flux. Fouling is detected by the increase of wall temperature of the probe. The oil is characterized by its filterable solids content, density, and viscosity both before and after the fouling run. The trends in fouling rates are compared to predictions of the threshold-fouling model proposed by Ebert and Panchal [6] Ebert, W. A. and Panchal, C. B. 1995. “Analysis of Exxon Crude Oil Slip-Stream Coking Data”. In Fouling Mitigation of Industrial Exchange Equipment, Edited by: Panchal, C. B. pp. 451–460. New York: Begell House. [Google Scholar]. Data on deposit composition are presented, and the fouling mechanism 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it