MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030204113 · doi:10.1021/ef010243s

Role of Chain Reactions and Olefin Formation in Cracking, Hydroconversion, and Coking of Petroleum and Bitumen Fractions

2002· article· en· W2030204113 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

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlefin fiberCrackingChemistryCokeDistillationFluid catalytic crackingOrganic chemistryCatalysisResidue (chemistry)Context (archaeology)PetroleumChemical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the mechanism of cracking of distillate fractions is well-known, the reactions that underlay conversion of the residue fractions of petroleum and bitumen are not well defined. Despite the difficulties in analyzing residue fractions in detail, the chemistry of these materials must follow the same elementary reactions as distillates. This paper presents a consistent mechanism for cracking of residues based on the known chemistry of free-radical chain reactions and model compounds. The roles of hydrogen, donor solvents, and added catalysts are then interpreted in this context. The formation of olefin groups from cracking of aliphatic groups gives the potential for addition reactions in the liquid phase. Removal of olefin groups, by reactions with donor solvents or hydrogenation, controls addition reactions and thereby suppresses coke formation. This mechanism suggests that innovative methods to remove or react olefinic groups may allow higher conversion of residues to desirable liquid products.

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 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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