MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016708927 · doi:10.1021/ef0496698

Association Behavior of Pyrene Compounds as Models for Asphaltenes

2005· article· en· W2016708927 on OpenAlexaff
Kamran Akbarzadeh, David C. Bressler, Jianing Wang, Keith L. Gawrys, Murray R. Gray, Peter K. Kilpatrick, Harvey W. Yarranton

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVapor pressure osmometryChemistryAsphaltenePyreneOsmometerAlkylVapor pressureSolventHydrogen bondTolueneNeutron scatteringSolvationOrganic chemistryMoleculeScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asphaltene association in solution has been studied extensively using methods such as vapor-pressure osmometry and neutron scattering. These methods give relative data on association as a function of solvent strength, temperature, and concentration, but interpretation of the results is hampered by the polyfunctional nature of asphaltenes and the distribution of molecular weight. In this work, we present data on association of representative model structures for asphaltenes, as measured using vapor-pressure osmometry in o -dichlorobenzene at 75−130 °C, and using small-angle neutron scattering in toluene. A series of compounds were synthesized based on the four-ring aromatic compound pyrene. The synthetic compounds were designed to give interactions between aromatic rings, alkyl chains, and selected functional groups through aromatic interactions, hydrogen bonding, and polar interactions. Even in this strong solvent, polar interactions between oxygen functional groups gave average molecular weights of up to twice the true value, indicating dimer formation. An alkyl pyrene compound, dipyrenyl decane, gave much less significant association. Pyrene itself exhibited little or no self-association.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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