MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994176977 · doi:10.1021/ef060013j

Equipartitioning of Precipitant Solubles between the Solution Phase and Precipitated Asphaltene in the Precipitation of Asphaltene

2006· article· en· W1994176977 on OpenAlexaff
O. P. Strausz, M. Lopez Torres, E. M. Lown, I. Safarik, Juan Murgich

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneChemistryFraction (chemistry)ColloidPrecipitationChromatographyPhase (matter)Residual oilOrganic chemistryChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown by sequential reprecipitation that both n -C 5 and n -C 7 Athabasca asphaltene contain significant amounts of precipitant solubles, comprising resins and low-molecular-weight asphaltene-like substances in about the same percentage amounts relative to the residual precipitated insoluble asphaltene. All of the several hundred resinous molecules detected in the n -C 5 solubles, with some minor exceptions, were also detected in the resin fraction of the maltene. From an estimation of the concentrations of several compound classes in the solution and solid asphaltene phases, values were derived for the equipartitioning coefficients. The results implicate aromatic stacking as the dominant mode of association of resins and asphaltene. The aggregate amount of n -C 5 solubles associated with the n -C 5 insoluble plus the aggregate amount of n -C 7 solubles associated with the n -C 7 insoluble residual asphaltene obtained in the sixth reprecipitation is more than 50% of the latter, and in the native oil, it is estimated to exceed 70%. This fraction, representing a fifth compound class of crude oil, plays a paramount role in the stabilization of the colloidal solution of asphaltene and should be investigated more extensively.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207