MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325214859 · doi:10.1021/ef400142v

Molecular Weight and Density Distributions of Asphaltenes from Crude Oils

2013· article· en· W2325214859 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Barrera, D. P. Ortiz, Harvey W. Yarranton

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersShell
KeywordsAsphalteneHeptaneTolueneChemistryMolar mass distributionSolubilityChromatographyOrganic chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asphaltenes self-associate, and the molecular weight and density distributions are a factor in asphaltene precipitiation. To determine these distributions, heptane-extracted asphaltenes from four crude oils were fractionated into solubility cuts. The asphaltenes were dissolved in toluene and then partially precipitated at specified ratios of heptane/toluene to generate sets of light (soluble) and heavy (insoluble) cuts. The molecular weight and density were measured for each cut. The asphaltenes were found to include both associating and non-associating asphaltenes. The content of non-associating components was up to 15 wt % of the asphaltenes. The density distributions were determined directly from the data. The molecular weight data were fitted with a self-association model to predict the distributions at any given concentration. Then, a guideline was developed to represent the molecular weight distribution of non-associated and associated asphaltenes with a Γ distribution function. Finally, the density of asphaltene cuts was correlated to their molecular weight. This correlation fit the data with an average absolute deviation of 11 kg/m 3 .

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations103
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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