MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985419931 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450820412

Factors Governing Friction Losses in Self‐lubricated Transport of Bitumen Froth: 1. Water Release

2004· article· en· W1985419931 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
R. Sean Sanders, Taehwan Ko, Runyuan Bai, Daniel D. Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
FundersSyncrudeUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsRheometerAsphaltMaterials sciencePetroleum engineeringCylinderFlow (mathematics)ViscosityFraction (chemistry)Environmental scienceComposite materialChromatographyChemistryMechanicsRheologyGeologyMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Syncrude Canada Ltd. transports bitumen froth, a viscous intermediate product of the oil sand extraction process, 35 km via pipeline. Pipeline transport is feasible because some of the water that occurs naturally in the froth forms a thin lubricating layer around a bitumen‐rich core, thereby greatly reducing friction losses and transportation costs. In this paper, the effect of froth composition (namely, water content) on the formation of the lubricating layer is reported. Tests were conducted with a 25 mm diameter pipe loop and a concentric cylinder froth rheometer. Measurements of pressure gradient and water holdup (free water fraction), along with visual observations, showed that froth containing a lower total water content yielded less free water to the lubricating layer. In the froth rheometer, the conditions for which stable, self‐lubricated flow could be maintained were comparable to those required to maintain self‐lubricated flow in the 25 mm pipe loop.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207