MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996346117 · doi:10.3720/japt.70.522

Water recycling for oil sands development

2005· article· en· W1996346117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nobutoshi Shimizu, Tsuneta Nakamura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageOil sandsWaste managementPetroleum engineeringOil fieldEnvironmental scienceBoiler (water heating)EngineeringEnvironmental engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1999, Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited has been producing heavy oil derived from oil sands in the Hangingstone field, northeastern Alberta, using Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) technology. In order to follow severe environmental policies in Alberta, water recycling is mandatory to operate SAGD that needs a large amount of steam. Injected steam is returned as produced hot water, which is recycled as boiler feed water (BFW). However, the produced hot water contains dissolved organic compounds (DOCs) that give trouble to water recycling system, such as boiler tube leakage. Under the system where DOCs are supplied from oil sand reservoir, our study result for DOCs showed that it is very difficult to remove DOCs from BFW in a technical and/or economical way. To date, the water recycling system has been improved with a concept that DOCs can not be as concentrated in the BFW line as possible. DOCs are concentrated into disposal water, which is injected to a disposal zone. The actual result that water recycling ratio is now over 90% ranks high.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum TechnologySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207