MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997382630 · doi:10.1021/ie061169+

Concentrated Bitumen-in-Water Emulsification in Coaxial Mixers

2007· article· en· W1997382630 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Philippe Gingras, Louis Fradette, Philippe A. Tanguy, Eric Jorda

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltEnvironmental scienceCoaxialPetroleum engineeringProcess engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringComposite materialTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A semibatch bitumen emulsification process to generate droplet size in the submicrometer range was developed in a coaxial mixer using a high-internal-phase ratio (HIPR) step followed by dilution to the final concentration of the dispersed phase. An HIPR emulsion is characterized by nonspherical droplets shape separated by thin films due to low ratio between the continuous- and dispersed-phase concentrations. The same mixing system was used to prepare the HIPR intermediate and the eventual emulsion, based on a pitched blade turbine on the high-speed shaft and two different types of close-clearance impellers on the low-speed shaft. It was found that the most critical process stage to achieve the mean droplet size was the preparation of the HIPR emulsion. The dispersed-phase and surfactant concentrations, the close-clearance impeller rotational speed, and agitation time were identified as key process parameters to control the droplet size. These parameters were combined to provide a prediction model of the average droplet size with two dimensionless parameters, namely, the initial surfactant concentration in the continuous phase and the bitumen weighted deformation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207