MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084481639 · doi:10.1080/10916460008949828

A CORRELATION FOR VISCOSITY AND SOLVENT MASS FRACTION OF BITUMEN-DILUENT MIXTURES

2000· article· en· W2084481639 on OpenAlexaff
Adango Miadonye, N. Latour, V.R. Puttagunta

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiluentViscosityThermodynamicsAsphaltChemistryRelative viscositySolventAbsolute deviationMass fractionFraction (chemistry)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryMathematicsStatisticsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple equation is presented for predicting the kinematic viscosity of bitumens and heavy oils mixed with diluents. The correlation has been shown to provide accurate viscosity estimates of these mixtures for a wide range of data and requires only the knowledge of the pure bitumen and pure solvent viscosities at any given temperature. The correlation makes use of a viscosity reduction parameter which reduces error significantly when compared to similar equations presented by Chirinos et al. (1983), and Cragoe (1933). For a total of 89 data points, excluding the pure bitumens and diluents values, the correlation yielded an overall average absolute deviation of about 14 percent. The same equation was applied to predict the mass fraction of diluent required to reduce bitumen viscosity to pumping viscosity. Predicted values matched experimental values very well, with an overall average absolute deviation of about 6 percent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePetroleum Science and TechnologySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207