MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315338650 · doi:10.1021/je4001735

Experimental Determination of <i>k</i>-Values and Compositional Analysis of Liquid Phases in the Liquid–Liquid Equilibrium Study of (Athabasca Bitumen + Ethane) Systems

2013· article· en· W2315338650 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Kariznovi, Hossein Nourozieh, Jalal Abedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAsphaltBoiling pointThermodynamicsPhase (matter)SolventVolume (thermodynamics)BoilingYield (engineering)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyOrganic chemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phase behavior properties of (bitumen + solvent) systems have a significant effect on surface upgrading methods and are necessary for the recovery of bitumen from reservoir. In this study, the phase partitioning and component distribution between phases as well as phase properties at equilibrium condition for the (Athabasca bitumen + ethane) system at room temperature were experimentally evaluated. The experiments were conducted using a designed pressure–volume–temperature (PVT) apparatus to obtain liquid–liquid equilibrium properties as well as extraction yield for (bitumen + solvent) systems. In addition, the equilibrium k -value for each component present in the mixture at equilibrium condition was calculated on the basis of compositional analysis of liquid phases and available correlations for the molecular weight of heavy components. The impact of pressure and solvent to bitumen ratio on the boiling point curves and compositional analysis of flashed off liquids as well as equilibrium k -values were evaluated. Finally, the molecular weight of flashed off liquid phase samples were estimated on the basis of molecular weight and compositional analysis of liquids.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207