MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019373040 · doi:10.1021/ef0100247

Dynamics of Bitumen Fractions by Thin-Layer Chromatography/Flame Ionization Detection

2001· article· en· W2019373040 on OpenAlexaff
J-F. Masson, Terry Price, Peter Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryFlame ionization detectorDissolutionFractionationAsphaltIonizationGas chromatographyChromatographyReproducibilityThin-layer chromatographyOrganic chemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thin-layer chromatography/flame ionization detection (TLC/FID) allows for the fractionation of bitumen into four fractions, namely, the saturates, the aromatics, the resins A and the resins B (SARAB). The technique is rapid and economical, but it lacks reproducibility. The effect of chromarod aging on reproducibility was investigated along with that of the time between bitumen dissolution and its analysis (time lapse effects). It is found that chromarod aging causes a 2−5% variation in SARAB content, and that time lapse causes a 50−75% variation in the aromatics and resins A content. The effect of time lapse stems from the aging of bitumen in solution. A mechanism for this aging is provided. It is demonstrated to be a physical rather than a chemical transformation of bitumen that reveals itself as a conversion of aromatics into resins. The physical nature of aging is shown by the absence of oxidation and aromatization in solution and by the successful modeling of aging after a reversible process. The conversion of aromatics into resins is explained by the grouping of alkyl-aromatics into micelles. Micelles mimic resins during chromatography and cause an apparent increase in resins concentration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207