MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074325906 · doi:10.1021/ef8006273

Asphaltene Nanoaggregates Studied by Centrifugation

2008· article· en· W2074325906 on OpenAlexaff
Farshid Mostowfi, Kentaro Indo, Oliver C. Mullins, Richard A. McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneTolueneCentrifugationChemistryColloidMonomerDiffusionChromatographyWork (physics)Phase (matter)Chemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Organic chemistryThermodynamicsPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The colloidal structure of asphaltenes impacts various physical properties and is important to characterize. Previously, in both laboratory and oilfield studies, asphaltenes have been shown to form nanoaggregates. In addition, previous work has shown that asphaltenes exhibit a critical nanoaggregate concentration (CNAC) in toluene in the range of 50−150 mg/L. In this study, centrifugation is used to prove a major change of asphaltene aggregation at the CNAC concentration, thereby corroborating previous results. Collection of these nanoaggregates by centrifugation validates there existence. The nanoaggregate size is found to be ∼2.5 nm, which is compatible with corresponding previous determinations from gravitational gradients. Asphaltene monomers are seen to be small (<1.5 nm), confirming previous diffusion measurements and corroborating the now common view that asphaltene molecular size is rather small. A two-component, monomer and nanoaggregate, phase equilibrium model is shown to treat the primary features of the data; nevertheless, shortcomings of this model are discussed. These centrifugation experiments are simple and we believe compelling confirmation of the asphaltene CNAC in toluene.

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 score0.003
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations156
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207