A Characterization of Solution Gas Flaring in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information reported here is the result of a detailed analysis of data on flared and vented solution gas in the Province of Alberta in 1999. A goal of characterizing these flares was to aid in the improved management of solution gas flaring. In total, 4499 oil and bitumen batteries reported flaring or venting with a combined gas volume of 1.42 billion m3. There was significant site-to-site variation in volumes of gas flared or vented, gas composition, and flare design. Approximately 5% of physical batteries generate 35.7% of the gas flared and vented from oil and bitumen batteries. Therefore, if one were to attempt to mitigate flaring, significant progress could be made by starting with only the largest sites. The monthly variability of gas volumes was considered because high variability could affect implementation of alternative technologies. It was found that slightly more than 40% of the sites were reasonably steady and had monthly deviations of 100% or less from the average flared volume. The variability in monthly volumes was less for the larger batteries. Data from individual well sites show significant variability in the relative concentrations of each of the major species contained in solution gas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".