MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987229118 · doi:10.2118/138973-pa

Estimation of Bitumen and Solids Content in Fine Tailings Using Low-Field NMR Technique

2010· article· en· W1987229118 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandra Motta Cabrera, J. Bryan, Apostolos Kantzas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaShell CanadaSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsTailingsOil sandsAsphaltLand reclamationSettlingEnvironmental scienceExtraction (chemistry)SedimentationSoil scienceGeologyMining engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineeringChemistrySedimentMetallurgyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The oil sands mining and extraction processes in Canada produce large volumes of tailings that are a mixture of mainly water, clay, sand, chemicals and bitumen. This mixture is transported to tailings ponds, where gravity segregation occurs. During this process, a stable suspension called mature fine tailings (MFT) is formed, which requires many years to fully consolidate. Therefore, land reclamation and water recirculation become significant environmental issues. For this reason, it is important to understand the tailings' content and their settling properties. This study uses the low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technique to estimate the water, bitumen and solids composition of synthetic and real tailings samples through a bimodal compositional detection method under ambient conditions. NMR measurements were conducted in 15 minutes, which is a relatively fast measurement allowing for rapid monitoring of tailings compositions. The results show that the NMR technique can be a potential on-site fast measurement of composition and settling characteristics of tailings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207