MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049925886 · doi:10.1520/jai100465

Physical, Performance, and Chemical Changes in Turbine Oils from Oxidation

2006· article· en· W2049925886 on OpenAlexaff
GJ Livingstone, BT Thompson, ME Okazaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTurbineGas turbinesEnvironmental scienceChemical engineeringProcess engineeringPetroleum engineeringMetallurgyMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the primary factors in determining the life and performance of turbine oils is its oxidation stability. Oxidation can cause a host of problems for in-service turbine oils, such as sludge, deposits, lacquer, and varnish formation. There is limited published research on the performance of turbine oils once oxidation begins. This paper presents data on the relationship between several turbine oil characteristics during the oxidation process by focusing on the measurable physical and chemical changes that occur. Five turbine oils were chosen, each employing different antioxidants and base oil refining technologies to represent a typical selection of commercially available turbine oils. A 49-day experiment was completed in which the oils were subjected to a controlled and accelerated oxidative process under laboratory conditions. Throughout the testing period, samples were drawn and a range of chemical, physical, and performance tests were performed. The data obtained from this experiment identify several correlations that relate to the performance of each oil. These data are useful in understanding the relationship between turbine oil oxidation and fluid performance and will help end-users in selecting and optimizing their turbine lubricant.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207