MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292341013 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22463

Ni and V removal from oil and model compounds without hydrogenation: Natural chabazite as solid acid

2016· article· en· W2292341013 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gonzalo Rocha Aguilera, Shaofeng Yang, Abu Junaid, Steven M. Kuznicki, William C. McCaffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChabaziteVanadiumNickelChemistryCatalysisChemical engineeringHydrogenTungstenInorganic chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryZeolite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, natural chabazite was identified as a catalyst for a novel thermocatalytic oil upgrading process. To further develop this process, it is essential to understand the chemical reactions involved. In this study, up to 67.5 % vanadium removal from oil sands bitumen is obtained without adding hydrogen. Using model compounds, vanadium removals up to 47.9 % and nickel removals up to 3.4 % were obtained after a 1 h reaction at 400 °C. Nickel removal up to 90.0 % at equilibrium and room temperature was observed. Evidence of free‐base porphyrin formation is presented. It was also found that chabazite can catalyze the dealkylation of octaethylporphyrins. The results presented here allow for a better understanding of the chemical properties of chabazite and open the possibility for the creation of pretreatment processes that can remove metals and modify the structure of petroleum‐derived fractions without using hydrogen or rejecting substantial amounts of usable oil.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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