MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034781425 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450820410

Investigation of Oil Sands Froth Treatment

2004· article· en· W2034781425 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
U.G. Romanova, Harvey W. Yarranton, Laurier L. Schramm, W.E. Shelfantook

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)Saskatchewan Research Council (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersSyncrude
KeywordsOil sandsDilutionAsphaltSettlingSolventChromatographyPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceChemistryPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceGeologyEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistryComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two oil sand froth treatment methods are investigated: 1) dilution with an aromatic solvent followed by centrifugation (AS Method); 2) dilution with a paraffinic solvent followed by gravity settling (PS Method). The effectiveness of the methods is assessed in terms of bitumen recovery and the water content in the recovered diluted bitumen. The optimum solventto‐bitumen ratios are identified considering process type, ore quality, temperature, and residence time.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207