MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065738372 · doi:10.1680/envgeo.13.00044

Oil sand tailings characterisation for centrifuge dewatering

2014· article· en· W2065738372 on OpenAlexaff
Shahid Azam, Umme Salma Rima

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Geotechnics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersFriedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance
KeywordsTailingsDewateringCentrifugeOil sandsSettlingSuspension (topology)QuartzFlocculationSedimentAggregate (composite)ChemistryClay mineralsAdsorptionMineralogyGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this paper was to develop a fundamental understanding of oil sand tailings for centrifuge dewatering. Laboratory characterisation indicated that the investigated tailings were a fine-grained material (53% clay fraction) with a moderate water adsorption capacity (ωl= 55% and ωp= 25%). The solids consisted of 55% quartz and 40% clay minerals and showed a specific surface area of 43 m2/g and a cation exchange capacity of 29 cmol(+)/kg. Likewise, the pore water (pH = 8·15, EC = 3280 µS/cm and ZP = −46 mV) was dominated by Na+(776 mg/L), [Formula: see text] (679 mg/L), Cl−(518 mg/L) and [Formula: see text](377 mg/L). Centrifugation physically improved tailings dewatering through particle segregation, assemblage formation and flow channeling. For a g factor of up to 2550 g, the released water increased by 4·7%, the entrapped water decreased by 30% and the sediment solids content increased by 7%: all quantities compared to self-weight settling. The corresponding decrease in physicochemical properties confirmed aggregate formation and an effective capture of clay particles in the suspension zone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental GeotechnicsSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207