Role of Dissolving Carbon Dioxide in Densification of Oil Sands Tailings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) was shown as a promising alternative for oil sands tailings treatment with economical and environmental benefits. This study aims to understand the role of CO 2 addition in densification of oil sands tailings. In this study, CO 2 was pressurized into two industrial whole tailings provided by Syncrude Canada Ltd. and Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. The optimal initial settling rate, supernatant clarity and solids content of sediment were achieved at a CO 2 partial pressure of about 100 kPa. The improvement on densification of oil sands tailings by CO 2 was mainly attributed to pH reduction under various CO 2 partial pressures. The zeta potential of fines became less negative with decreasing pH, enhancing coagulation of fine solids. On the other hand, CO 2 bubbles formed by dissolved gas under supersaturation pressure led to a less clear supernatant by disturbing the formed sediments. Supersaturation with nitrogen was applied to the oil sands tailings to verify the influence of dissolved gas on solids sedimentation. The limit to CO 2 sequestration by oil sands tailings was experimentally evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".