MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321888857 · doi:10.1021/ef502053c

Mapping the Degree of Asphaltene Aggregation, Determined Using Rayleigh Scattering Measurements and Hansen Solubility Parameters

2014· article· en· W2321888857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Masato Morimoto, Takashi Sato, Sadao Araki, Ryuzo Tanaka, Hideki Yamamoto, Shinya Sato, Toshimasa Takanohashi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
KeywordsTolueneAsphalteneHildebrand solubility parameterChemistrySolventSolubilityBromobenzenePentaneChlorobenzeneAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degree of asphaltene aggregation ( D agg ) over a wide range of concentrations in various solvents under ambient conditions was examined using a quantitative index derived from Rayleigh scattering measurements by ultraviolet–visible spectrometry and the Hansen solubility parameter (HSP). The source of asphaltene was Canadian oil sand bitumen. The target concentration was ≤10%, and the source of the solvent was organic solvents having Δδ ≤ 5.5 MPa 0.5 of the HSP distance between each solvent and the asphaltene, such as toluene (TL), bromobenzene (BB), and toluene–pentane (TL–PT), toluene–bromobenzene (TL–BB), and toluene–quinoline (TL–QL) mixed solvents. Through these measurements, the effects of the concentration and solvent on D agg were examined quantitatively, which enabled the mapping of D agg . The D agg map obtained facilitates estimation of D agg under desired conditions, understanding of asphaltene aggregation behavior, and creation of a reasonable aggregation model.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207