MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070512228 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2008-1-661

OIL SPILL DISPERSION STABILITY AND OIL RE-SURFACING

2008· article· en· W2070512228 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCreamingEmulsionOstwald ripeningOil dropletCoalescence (physics)FlocculationPulmonary surfactantChemical engineeringDispersion (optics)ChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper summarizes the data and the theory of oil-in-water emulsion stability resulting in oil spill dispersion re-surfacing. There is an extensive body of literature on surfactants and interfacial chemistry, including experimental data on emulsion stability. The phenomenon of resurfacing oil is the result of two separate processes: de stabilization of an oil-in-water emulsion and desorption of surfactant from the oil-water interface which leads to further de stabilization. The de stabilization of oil-in-water emulsions such as chemical oil dispersions is a consequence of the fact that no emulsions are thermodynamically stable. Ultimately, natural forces move the emulsions to a stable state, which consists of separated oil and water. What is important is the rate at which this occurs. An emulsion is said to be kinetically stable when significant separation (usually considered to be half or 50% of the dispersed phase) occurs outside of the usable time. There are several forces and processes that result in the destabilization and resurfacing of oil-in-water emulsions such as chemically dispersed oils. These include gravitational forces, surfactant interchange with water and subsequent loss of surfactant to the water column, creaming, coalescence, flocculation, Ostwald ripening, and sedimentation. Gravitational separation is the most important force in the resurfacing of oil droplets from crude oil-in-water emulsions such as dispersions. Droplets in an emulsion tend to move upwards when their density is lower than that of water. Creaming is the de stabilization process that is simply described by the appearance of the starting dispersed phase at the surface. Coalescence is another important de stabilization process. Two droplets that interact as a result of close proximity or collision can form a new larger droplet. The result is to increase the droplet size and the rise rate, resulting in accelerated de stabilization of the emulsion. Studies show that coalescence increases with increasing turbidity as collisions between particles become more frequent. Another important phenomenon when considering the stability of dispersed oil, is the absorption/desorption of surfactant from the oil/water interface. In dilute solutions, much of the surfactant in the dispersed droplets ultimately partitions to the water column and thus is lost to the dispersion process. This paper provides a summary of the processes and data from some experiments relevant to oil spill dispersions.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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