Wax precipitation modeled with many mixed solid phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The behavior of the Coutinho UNIQUAC model for solid wax phases has been examined. The model can produce as many mixed solid phases as the number of waxy components. In binary mixtures, the solid rich in the lighter component contains little of the heavier component but the second phase shows substantial amounts of the lighter component dissolved in the heavier solid. Calculations have been performed taking into account the recrystallization of the solid alkanes into a second solid form. The Coutinho UNIQUAC model has been used to describe the lower‐temperature solid phases. The higher‐temperature mixed solid phase has been assumed to be either an ideal solution or to be described by Coutinho's Wilson activity coefficient model. This procedure accounts for more of the known behavior of mixed n‐alkane solids. Comparison is also made with results assuming that all of the solid phases, both high‐temperature and low‐temperature forms, are pure. Model calculations compare well with the data of Pauly et al. for C18 to C30 waxes precipitating from n‐decane solutions. © 2004 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 51: 290–308, 2005
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".