MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087457466 · doi:10.1081/dis-120037684

Applied Statistics: Crude Oil Emulsions and Demulsifiers

2004· article· en· W2087457466 on OpenAlex
Michael K. Poindexter, Paul M. Lindemuth

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dispersion Science and Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsNalcor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemulsifierEmulsionCrude oilEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringPetroleum engineeringPulp and paper industryEngineeringChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water‐in‐crude oil emulsions are encountered at many oilfield production facilities. These emulsions are often inherently stable requiring the use of chemical treatment, heat, and residence time to effect resolution. The addition of chemical demulsifiers in small levels can greatly facilitate oil–water separation. Even with numerous demulsifier applications in place throughout the world, there still remains a great deal to understand regarding how to streamline demulsifier selection, how demulsifiers counter the indigenous crude oil components and properties that impart emulsion stability and which crude oil components and process variables are most critical in describing emulsion strength. Field studies were undertaken to address these concerns using two statistical methods—experimental design and cluster analysis. Experimental design was used to investigate the importance of four process variables, while cluster analysis used an ensemble of demulsifiers and crude oil characterization to build models describing emulsion stability.

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 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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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