MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137076881 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450850101

Petroleum Residue Upgrading Via Delayed Coking: A Review

2007· review· en· W2137076881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashish N. Sawarkar, Aniruddha B. Pandit, Shriniwas D. Samant, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCokePetroleum cokeOil refineryDelayed cokerWaste managementRefineryRefining (metallurgy)PetroleumEnvironmental scienceTonneCrude oilEngineeringProcess engineeringPetroleum engineeringMetallurgyChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract World petroleum residue processing capacity has reached about 725 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA). The high demand for transportation fuels and the ever‐rising heavy nature of crude oil have resulted in a renewed interest in the bottom‐of‐the‐barrel processing using various conversion processes. Delayed coking, known for processing virtually any refinery stream (which not only poses a serious threat to environment, but also involves a disposal cost) has garnered tremendous importance in the current refining scenario. Needle coke obtained from delayed coking process is a highly sought‐after product, which is used in electric arc furnaces (in the form of graphite electrodes) in steel making applications. In the present communication, the published literature has been extensively analyzed and a state‐of‐the‐art review has been written that includes: (1) importance and place of delayed coking as a residue upgrading process in the current refining scenario; (2) coking mechanism and kinetics; (3) design aspects; (4) feedstocks suitable for the production of needle coke; (5) characteristics of needle coke; (6) factors affecting needle coke quality and quantity; and (7) future market for needle coke. An attempt has been made to get the above‐mentioned aspects together in a coherent theme so that the information is available at a glance and could be of significant use for researchers and practising refiners.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations183
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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