Coke yield and heat transfer in reaction of liquid–solid agglomerates of Athabasca vacuum residue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ultimate coke yield was determined for agglomerates of Athabasca vacuum residue and coke particles by heating on Curie‐point alloy strips in an induction furnace at 503 and 530°C until all toluene‐soluble material was converted. Coke yield results from agglomerates were compared to the coke yield results from reacting thin films of vacuum residue. The average coke yield from the agglomerates was 23%, while the coke yield from thin films of 20 µm thickness was 11%, which supports the role of mass transfer in coke formation reactions. The ultimate coke yield was insensitive to vacuum residue concentration, agglomerate size, and reaction temperature. The temperature profile within agglomerates was measured by implanting a thermocouple, and a simple heat transfer model was used to describe the temperature variation with time. The effective thermal diffusivity of the agglomerates was 0.20 × 10−6 m2/s. Control experiments on reaction in thin liquid films confirmed that heating rates in the range of 14.8–148 K/s had no effect on the ultimate yield of coke yield.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".