MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079902341 · doi:10.1021/ef040073u

Effect of Solvent-to-Bitumen Ratio on the Pyrolysis Properties of Precipitated Athabasca Asphaltenes

2005· article· en· W2079902341 on OpenAlexaff
W. I. Friesen, Kirk H. Michaelian, Yicheng Long, Tadeusz Dąbroś

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDevon Energy (Canada)Natural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneOil sandsAsphaltPyrolysisChemistrySolventHexaneCokeChemical engineeringFraction (chemistry)Thermogravimetric analysisChromatographyOrganic chemistryMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first stage in the conventional hot water process for extracting bitumen from mined oil sand produces a bitumen froth containing substantial amounts of emulsified water and fine solids. Dilution of the froth with a sufficient quantity of a paraffinic solvent, such as hexane, causes the aggregation and rapid settling of water droplets, solid particles, and precipitated asphaltenes. The fraction of asphaltenes precipitated from the bitumen increases with the solvent-to-bitumen ratio ( S / B ). This paper reports the results of thermogravimetric measurements of asphaltenes precipitated from Athabasca bitumen using hexane at S / B values ranging from 1.1 to 3.5. For all samples, approximately 60 wt % of the hydrocarbons was volatilized below 525 °C, and most of the remainder was transformed into coke. Pyrolysis-gas chromatography and photoacoustic Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy support the conclusion that varying S / B does not greatly alter the chemical composition of the precipitated asphaltenes and their pyrolytic products.

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)0.001
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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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