MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314848789 · doi:10.1021/ac302680y

Extraction, Separation, and Intramolecular Carbon Isotope Characterization of Athabasca Oil Sands Acids in Environmental Samples

2012· article· en· W2314848789 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason M. E. Ahad, Hooshang Pakdel, Martine M. Savard, Marie‐Christine Simard, Anna Smirnoff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsChemistryOil sandsExtraction (chemistry)Characterization (materials science)Isotopes of carbonEnvironmental chemistryIsotopeCarbon fibersIsotope analysisChromatographyAsphaltTotal organic carbonGeologyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we report a novel approach to extract, isolate, and characterize high molecular weight organic acids found in the Athabasca oil sands region using preparative capillary gas chromatography (PCGC) followed by thermal conversion/elemental analysis-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (TC/EA-IRMS). A number of different "naphthenic acids" surrogate standards were analyzed as were samples from the bitumen-rich unprocessed McMurray Formation, oil sands process water, groundwater from monitoring wells, and surface water from the Athabasca River. The intramolecular carbon isotope signature generated by online pyrolysis (δ(13)C(pyr)) showed little variation (±0.6‰) within any given sample across a large range of mass fractions separated by PCGC. Oil sand, tailings ponds, and deep McMurray Formation groundwater were significantly heavier (up to ∼9‰) compared to surface water and shallow groundwater samples, demonstrating the potential use of this technique in source apportionment studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207