MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981406499 · doi:10.1081/lft-120023225

The Use of Microscopic Bitumen Froth Morphology for the Identification of Problem Oil Sand Ores

2003· article· en· W1981406499 on OpenAlexaffabout
V.A. Munoz, Kim L. Kasperski, Oladipo Omotoso, Randy J. Mikula

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsDevon Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltOil sandsMorphology (biology)Petroleum engineeringMineralogyIdentification (biology)GeologyEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryChemical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oil sand, which is found in various deposits around the world, consists mostly of sand, surrounded by up to 18 wt% bitumen. The largest deposits known are situated in northern Alberta, Canada, where reserves of bitumen are estimated to be 1.7 trillion barrels. Bitumen is similar to heavy oil, but with much higher viscosity and density. The two main commercial oil sand operations in Alberta are surface mines and use aqueous flotation of the bitumen to separate it from the rest of the oil sand. Under optimal conditions up to 95% of the bitumen can be recovered, but occasionally ores are mined that create problems in extraction, and recovery can drop to 70% or less. This article discusses the microscopic morphologies of various bitumen and heavy oil streams and their relationship to processing problems. The results of extensive microscopic work have demonstrated that the bitumen in an oil sand ore is the phase most susceptible to oxidation and that the resulting changes manifest themselves in partic...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePetroleum Science and TechnologySame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207