Size distribution as a measure of dispersant performanceA paper submitted to the Journal of Environmental and Engineering Science.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study of the chemical dispersion of crude oil using size distribution methods can provide important information needed for oil-spill response strategy, which is lacking in the more commonly used mass–concentration methods. Therefore, identification of a reliable method or methods that can provide accurate information regarding droplet size and the mass of oil dispersed is necessary. This research compared four such methods. Gravimetric analysis of the oil mass dispersed was biased low due to loss of volatile components, whereas UV spectroscopy provided accurate results. Size–distribution data obtained using an optical particle counter (OPC) produced accurate estimates of oil mass dispersed, but microscopic examination produced inaccurate and poorly reproducible estimates. Although size–distribution metrics (e.g., estimates of the mean diameter of the size distribution) produced by the two methods were similar, microscopic examination gave unreliable estimates of the number concentration of dispersed oil droplets due to the relatively small number of observations relative to the OPC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".