MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401914715 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02420

Use of Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis for Particle Size Determination of Dispersed Catalyst in Bitumen and Heavy Oil Fractions

2015· article· en· W2401914715 on OpenAlexafffund
Victor M. Rodriguez-DeVecchis, Lante Carbognani Ortega, Carlos E. Scott, Pedro Pereira‐Almao

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrostatics and Colloid Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsNanomaterial-based catalystParticle sizeAsphaltNanoparticleNanoparticle tracking analysisCatalysisParticle (ecology)Materials scienceRange (aeronautics)Tracking (education)Sample preparationChemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyChemistryChromatographyComposite materialOrganic chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) for size determination of nanocatalysts dispersed in bitumen or heavy oil fractions was investigated. A method for sample preparation is proposed, and comments on adaptation of the technique and troubleshooting are addressed and discussed. The NTA was able to measure the particle size of a trimetallic catalyst dispersed in bitumen obtaining a mode size of 111 nm, with particles ranging from 40 to 1000 nm and 80% of them between 57 and 176 nm. NTA data was compared to the particle size obtained by depositing the same catalyst on sand and analyzing it through SEM-EDX, obtaining the same particle size range. Refinement of the sample preparation method and measuring parameters are suggested.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicElectrostatics and Colloid InteractionsFrench-language works237,207