MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988660034 · doi:10.1080/10916466.2010.495960

The Comparison of Bitumens from Oil Sands with Different Recovery Profiles

2012· article· en· W1988660034 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)National Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneAsphaltOil sandsChemistryViscositySulfurNitrogenSolventCarbon fibersChromatographyComposition (language)Materials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has been proposed that, regardless of origin, the recovery of bitumen from oil sands is related to its viscosity. Asphaltene and resin contents are known to affect the viscosity of bitumen. In this article we compare the composition of solvent-extracted bitumens from several Athabasca oil sands with very different recovery profiles. After careful removal of any associated mineral matter by ultra-centrifugation, each bitumen sample was separated into saturate, aromatic, resin, and asphaltene (SARA) fractions by an enhanced SARA technique. The individual components were then characterized by several complementary analytical techniques, including carbon, nitrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, size exclusion chromatography molecular weight (MWn) plus proton and 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Based on this comparison, we see no correlation between the recovery of bitumen and its composition.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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