Effect of Solid Wettability on Processability of Oil Sands Ores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wettability of mineral solids and bitumen isolated from nine different Athabasca oil sands ores was determined to establish its role in water-based extraction of bitumen from oil sands. The processability of oil sands ores was determined using Denver flotation tests. The contact angle of a water drop on a bitumen-coated silica wafer was measured using the sessile drop method. For fine solids (<45 μm), the water drop penetration time was measured on a surface of a compressed disk of fine solids. For coarse solids (106−250 μm), the wettability of solids was evaluated by determining the partitioning of the solids between an oil and a water phase. It was found that the processability of different oil sands ores varies significantly in term of bitumen recovery, bitumen froth quality, and bitumen froth morphology. The wettability of bitumen, on the other hand, does not significantly depend on the source of oil sands ores. However, the wettability of the fine and coarse mineral solids is ore-dependent, which affects both bitumen recovery and bitumen froth quality. The presence of hydrophobic solids in oil sands ores depresses bitumen recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".