MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035631065 · doi:10.1080/10916460802105534

Scaling Up of Chemical Injection Experiments

2009· article· en· W2035631065 on OpenAlex
Avijit Basu, M. R. Islam

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

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingScaling lawComputer scienceField (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Biochemical engineeringMathematicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well known that laboratory experiments are the most useful means of developing predictive models for various engineering applications. However, scaling laws should be known in order to scale up laboratory results to field conditions. This scaling up offers a formidable challenge in scenarios involving complex solid/fluid interactions which are predominant in chemical processes such as in petroleum engineering and environmental remediation. This article presents a series of chemical adsorption tests and provides one with the scaled-up versions; these results are then compared with numerical simulation results. Finally, recommendations are made as to how to interpret laboratory experimental results and apply scaling laws to predict field behavior.

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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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