MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033513093 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20029

Effect of molecular weight and charge density on the performance of polyacrylamide in low‐grade oil sand ore processing

2008· article· en· W2033513093 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Haihong Li, Jun Long, Zhenghe Xu, Jacob H. Masliyah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTailingsSettlingPolyacrylamideAsphaltPolymerOil sandsMaterials scienceChemical engineeringExtraction (chemistry)DispersantAdhesionMineralogyComposite materialChemistryChromatographyMetallurgyEnvironmental sciencePolymer chemistryEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effect of charge density and molecular weight (MW) of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) polymers on their performance in processing low‐grade oil sand ores was investigated. Bitumen extraction and tailings settling tests were carried out and an atomic force microscope (AFM) was used to directly measure the bitumen‐solid and solid‐solid interaction forces. It was found that HPAM polymers with a low MW acted as dispersants in the bitumen extraction process, resulting in low bitumen recovery and slow tailings settling but improved froth quality. In contrast, the use of HPAM polymers with a high MW improved both bitumen recovery and tailings settling but deteriorated froth quality. To achieve high bitumen recovery and fast tailings settling, a HPAM polymer must have a low to medium charge density (∼30%) and a high MW (17.5 million Daltons). A stronger clay‐bitumen adhesion force normally resulted in a lower bitumen recovery. Fast tailings settling was achieved in the presence of a strong solid‐solid adhesion force.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207