Detailed Study of Low-Temperature Oxidation of an Alaska Heavy Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, low-temperature oxidation (LTO) of a heavy oil sample from Alaska has been investigated. Six isothermal and one non-isothermal experimental runs were conducted between 100 and 350 °C, where LTO dominates. The combustion data obtained from a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) was analyzed, and a comparison has been made between the kinetic parameters (reaction order, rate constant, and activation energy) from a first-order, general reaction rate and Segal and Fatu’s approach. The temperature scan of the oxidation process revealed that there were four temperature intervals during which different modes dominated the LTO process. The first temperature interval, ranging from 100 to 150 °C, and the third interval, ranging from 200 to 250 °C, both had overall reactions that were endothermic. However, in the second zone from 150 and 200 °C and the fourth subzone from 250 to 350 °C, exothermic reactions were dominant. The peak LTO rate occurred during the fourth interval, from 250 to 350 °C, and exhibits a decreasing rate versus temperature: the greater the temperature, the lower the reaction rate. The results obtained from the isothermal runs reveal that the reaction rate constant, activation energy, and pre-exponential factor for each temperature (determined from the first-order rate model) are all higher than those measures obtained in the general reaction rate model. The results from the non-isothermal runs showed that the values of the reaction rate constant, activation energy, and pre-exponential factor obtained from the approach by Segal and Fatu are similar to those calculated from the general reaction rate model. This was particularly true for the LTO peak temperature. The analysis of the results yields the mean activation energy for the LTO peak equal to 1130.2 cal/mol for isothermal experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".