Studies on the Evaporation Regulation Mechanisms of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various concepts for oil evaporation prediction are summarized. Models can be divided into those models that use the basis of air-boundary-regulation or those that do not. Experiments were conducted to determine if oil and petroleum evaporation is regulated by the saturation of the air boundary layer. Experiments included the examination of the evaporation rate with and without wind, in which case it was found that evaporation rates were similar for all wind conditions and no-wind conditions. Experiments where the area and mass varied showed that boundary-layer regulation was not governing for petroleum products. Under all experimental and environmental conditions, oils or petroleum products were not found to be boundary-layer regulated. Experiments on the rate of evaporation of pure compounds showed that compounds larger than Decane were not boundary-layer regulated. Many oils and petroleum products contain few compounds smaller than decane, and this explains why their evaporation is not air boundary-layer limited. Comparison of the air saturation levels of various oils and petroleum products shows that the saturation concentration of water, which is strongly air boundary-regulated, is significantly less than that of several petroleum hydrocarbons. Lack of air boundary-layer regulation for oils is shown to be a result of both this higher saturation concentration as well as a low (below boundary-layer value) evaporation rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".