MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120987321 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780419

Laboratory investigation of inversion of heavy oil emulsions

2000· article· en· W2120987321 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Randall G. Gillies, Ruijun Sun, C. A. Shook

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmulsionPhase inversionPulmonary surfactantLaminar flowChromatographyAqueous two-phase systemTurbulencePetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceOil dropletAqueous solutionChemical engineeringChemistryMechanicsGeologyEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laboratory investigations have been undertaken to assess the suitability of heavy oil‐in water emulsions for pipeline transportation. The emulsions contained 65% oil in water and were prepared using polyethoxy nonylphenol surfactants. Two methods were employed for simulating the shear process which accompanies pipeline flow: a bench scale stirred vessel and a rotated pipe toroid. The progress of the emulsions towards inversion, at which point the oil becomes the continuous phase, was followed by measuring the surfactant concentration in the aqueous phase using liquid chromatography. At inversion the surfactant concentration falls below the threshold level required to sustain an oil‐in‐water emulsion. The experiments showed that the lifetime of the emulsion depends upon the initial surfactant dosage, the solids content of the oil, the intensity of shear and the nature of the shear process. Laminar flow was found to be less desirable than turbulent flow.

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 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207