Impact of fine solids on mined athabasca oil sands extraction II. Effect of fine solids with different surface wettability on bitumen recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The effect of solids wettability on bitumen extraction recovery and froth quality was examined by adding fine solids (< 5 and < 40 μm silica, or < 5 μm kaolinite clays) and surfactants (dodecylamine) to the oil sands slurry. Oil sands extraction tests were run using a 1‐L Denver flotation cell at 50 °C. The results show that solids wettability plays a significant role in bitumen extraction recovery and froth quality. Adding fine solids to the oil sands slurry decreased bitumen recovery, and increased the amount of solids and water in the bitumen froth. The addition of finer solids (< 5 μm) into the oil sands slurry resulted in more solids and water in the bitumen froth than the addition of coarser solids (< 40 μm). Compared to hydrophilic solids, hydrophobized fine solids due to amine addition led to more fine solids being recovered to the bitumen froth. However, recovery of hydrophobized fine solids (resulting from amine adsorption) increased with smaller particle sizes, which is contrary to the trend in single mineral flotation where hydrophobized solids recovery increased with increasing particle sizes (for the size faction of < 44 μm).
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".