Prediction of CO<sub>2</sub>Solubility in Oil and the Effects on the Oil Physical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CO2 solubility in oil is a key parameter in CO2 flooding process. It results in oil swelling, increased oil density, and decreased oil viscosity. Laboratory studies needed to cover a wider range of data, and are time consuming, costly, and may be not available or possible in many situations. On the other hand, although various models and correlations are useful in certain situations, they may are not be applicable in many situations. In this study, a new genetic algorithm- (GA)-based technique has been used to develop more reliable correlations to predict CO2 solubility, oil swelling factor (SF), CO2-oil density, and viscosity of CO2-oil mixtures. Based on the Darwinian theory, the GA technique mimics some of the natural process mechanisms. Furthermore, GA-based model correlations recognize all the major parameters that affect each physical property and also well address the effects of CO2 liquefaction pressure. Genetic algorithm-based correlations have been successfully validated with published experimental data. In addition, a comparison of these correlations has been made against widely used correlations in the literature. It has been noted that the GA-based correlations yield more accurate predictions with lower errors than all other correlations tested. Furthermore, unlike other correlations that are applicable to limited data ranges and conditions, GA-based correlations have been validated over a wider range of data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".