MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999275465 · doi:10.1021/ef901470j

Comparative Kinetics and Thermal Behavior: The Study of Crude Oils Derived from Fosterton and Neilburg Fields of Saskatchewan

2010· article· en· W1999275465 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nader Mahinpey, Pulikesi Murugan, Thilakavathi Mani

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsAsphalteneThermogravimetryActivation energyArrhenius equationChemistryPyrolysisCombustionPetroleum cokeKineticsOrder of reactionKinetic energyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CokeOrganic chemistryInorganic chemistryReaction rate constant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pyrolysis and combustion characteristics of two different crude oil samples obtained from Fosterton (medium oil) and Neilburg (heavy oil) fields in Saskatchewan were studied and compared using the results of thermogravimetry (TG) and differential thermogravimetry (DTG) analyses. In addition, the properties of whole oil and asphaltene were determined by means of proximate and ultimate analyses. The analyses indicate that asphaltene from both Fosterton and Neilburg fields has a lower volatile matter and ash content as well as higher fixed carbon values when compared to the values of the respective whole oil. From the elemental analysis, it was determined that the H/C ratio is approximately the same for both reservoirs whole oil and asphaltenes. The reaction region, peak, and burnout temperatures of the samples were also determined. The Arrhenius equation provides kinetic data: activation energy, pre-exponential factor, and order of the reaction. The kinetic analysis showed similar activation energy for the combustion of coke produced from Neilburg and Fosterton oils, as 129.5 and 127 kJ/mol, respectively. The activation energy for Neilburg and Fosterton asphaltenes were 117.7 and 93.46 kJ/mol, respectively.

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 score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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