MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133355382 · doi:10.1002/aic.690491124

Regular solution model for asphaltene precipitation from bitumens and solvents

2003· article· en· W2133355382 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hussein Alboudwarej, Kamran Akbarzadeh, James S. Beck, William Y. Svrcek, Harvey W. Yarranton

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSyncrude
KeywordsAsphalteneMolar massSolubilityChemistryMolarMolar volumeHildebrand solubility parameterMole fractionPrecipitationSolventAlkaneMolar concentrationThermodynamicsMolar mass distributionFraction (chemistry)ChromatographyHydrocarbonOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistryGeologyPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A regular solution theory liquid‐liquid equilibrium model was developed to predict asphaltene precipitation from Western Canadian bitumens. The input parameters for the model are the mole fraction, molar volume, and solubility parameters for each component. Bitumens were divided into four main pseudo‐components corresponding to SARA fractions: saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes. Asphaltenes were divided into fractions of different associated molar mass based on a Schultz‐Zimm molar mass distribution. Asphaltene self‐association was accounted for through the average molar mass of the distribution. The molar volumes and solubility parameters of the pseudo‐components were calculated using solubility, density, and molar mass measurements. The model successfully predicted the effect of solvent type and associated molar mass on asphaltene precipitation for model oil and n‐alkane systems. The model also predicted the onset and amount of asphaltene precipitation from bitumens.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations196
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207