MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004960132 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450820409

A Perspective on the Selection of Froth Treatment Processes

2004· article· en· W2004960132 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
W.E. Shelfantook

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
FundersSyncrude
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)AsphaltPerspective (graphical)Solvent extractionFroth flotationPulmonary surfactantProcess engineeringExtraction (chemistry)Biochemical engineeringOutcome (game theory)Petroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceOperations managementEngineeringMaterials scienceChemistryChemical engineeringArtificial intelligenceEconomicsChromatographyMetallurgyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Treating of froths produced in extraction plants processing surface‐mined oilsand presents an interesting and challenging array of problems. Much of what we do to the feed ore to maximize recovery of bitumen creates surfactant/biwettable solids mixtures that stabilize water‐in‐oil emulsions. These persist despite our most strenuous attempts to break them. Temperature and solvent selection both influence the performance of froth treatment processes. However, often we do not look at the broader implications of either in new or expanding ventures. This paper presents another perspective, showing how both temperature and solvent selection influence the outcome of froth treatment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207