MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285838050 · doi:10.1002/mop.29670

Microwave heating of heavy oil reservoirs: A critical analysis

2016· article· en· W2285838050 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Oloumi, Karumudi Rambabu

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrowave and Optical Technology Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam TrustsAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsMicrowaveMultiphysicsOil sandsMicrowave heatingAsphaltPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceThermalMicrowave powerElectromagnetic heatingOil shaleThermal conductivityEnvironmental scienceWaste managementGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringElectrical engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this article, microwave heating of the heavy oil reservoir, oil‐sand, is critically studied. The study is carried out based on full wave and multiphysics simulations that are performed at 2.45 GHz using both CST Microwave studio and COMSOL. It is demonstrated that most of the microwave power is deposited in bitumen rather in sand due to the dielectric properties of bitumen. Thermal analysis showed that most of the heat is generated in bitumen and is conducted to sand. Although microwave power is selectively deposited into bitumen of the oil‐sand, the temperature gradient between the bitumen and sand is not able to maintain due to high thermal conductivity of the oil‐sand medium. Microwave heating can play very important role to reduce the tailing ponds and protect the environment by minimizing water usage in the recovery process. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 58:809–813, 2016

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrowave and Optical Technology LettersSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207