MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028245002 · doi:10.1021/ef050091r

Processability of Oil Sand Ores in Alberta

2005· article· en· W2028245002 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltOil sandsWeatheringExtraction (chemistry)GeologyMetallurgyMineralogyMaterials scienceChemistryGeochemistryComposite materialChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil sand ores mined at different locations in Alberta have different physical and chemical properties that dictate their processability by water-based bitumen extraction technology. In this study, the processability of one good processing ore and three poor processing ores has been investigated using a Denver flotation cell. The floatability of oil sand ores was found to vary significantly among the examined oil sand ores. Surface forces between bitumen−silica and bitumen−fines were measured using an atomic force microscope (AFM) to examine the mechanism of varying processability of oil sand ores. Factors examined include bitumen grade, fines content, divalent cation concentration, and weathering/aging. The results indicate that the processability of the ores cannot be simply evaluated from bitumen and fines content alone. Fines, divalent cations, and weathering/aging can significantly affect the processability of oil sand ores, either individually or collectively.

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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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