Prediction of hydrate formation conditions based on the vdWP‐type models at high pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prediction of phase boundaries of gas hydrates has been done for several decades based on the vdWP (van der Waals and Platteeuw) hydrate equation and the classical thermodynamic equations for describing the water fugacities in water or ice phase. This procedure gives a reasonable prediction at low pressures, but when the pressure increases, above 105 kPa, it shows a significant error. In the conventional vdWP‐type models it has been assumed that the volume difference between the empty hydrate lattice and pure liquid water is independent of the system pressure and temperature. In this work, different approaches for describing the volume dependency of pure liquid water and the empty hydrate lattice on the system pressure have been used to predict the hydrate equilibria based on the vdWP‐type model. Also, an expression is introduced to estimate the volume of methane hydrate lattice as a function of pressure and temperature. Finally, this method is extended to other hydrate formers, that is, ethane, carbon dioxide, xenon, and nitrogen. The predicted values are in good agreement with the experimental data both for Lw–H–V and Lw–H–Lhf phase boundaries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".