MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003261150 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2003-1-103

In-Situ Burning of Orimulsion: Small-Scale Burns

2003· article· en· W2003261150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionIgnition systemAsphaltEnvironmental scienceDiesel fuelWaste managementVapoursChemistryMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Orimulsion is a heavy bitumen dispersed into water with a surfactant. In general, in-situ burning has not been considered as a countermeasure for Orimulsion because of the nature of Orimulsion and the perception that the product could not be ignited. If it could be ignited, then combustion may not be sustained. This study examined the feasibility of burning Orimulsion at three small laboratory scales. Tests were conducted on three scales or diameters of approximately 5 cm, 10 cm, and 50 cm. Burning at the smallest scale was conducted in a Cleveland Open Cup apparatus, which was run in standard mode. A special pan was built for larger-scale burns. All tests were conducted on saltwater which resulted in the bitumen separating from the water in the Orimulsion. The Cleveland Open Cup apparatus was used to determine whether sufficient vapours could be generated to begin combustion. In 2 burns out of 9, limited burning of vapours was started. The same apparatus was also used to measure whether sustained flame impingement would result in successful combustion. This latter experiment was also successful in most cases. The larger scale combustion tests were conducted in a special pan and were ignited using diesel fuel as a primer. In all cases, quantitative removal of Orimulsion was achieved, although re-ignition was required in some burns. Orimulsion burns with frequent mini-explosions of entrained water droplets still in the bitumen. Some of these mini-explosions were large enough to extinguish the flame, if the burn area was not large enough. This did not occur on large-scale burns. Thus the potential for successful burning increases with the size of the burn. The amount of diesel ignitor required was found to be about 1 mm in thickness in the given starting area. Large-scale burns were ignited from an area less than 30% of the total area.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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