MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Batch Solvent Extraction of Bitumen from Oil Sand. Part 1: Theoretical Basis

2017· article· en· W2604545902 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Khammar, Yuming Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAsphaltFiltration (mathematics)Saturation (graph theory)Work (physics)Extraction (chemistry)PorosityVolume fractionVolumetric flow rateOil sandsConservation of massVolume (thermodynamics)Porous mediumChemistrySolventChromatographyMechanicsTwo-phase flowMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)ThermodynamicsMathematicsComposite materialOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model for flow through a porous medium with variable saturation is presented in this work to predict the volume and flow rate of extracted solvent-diluted bitumen from mineral solids during centrifugal filtration. The numerical method used for solving the flow equation is based on the mass-conservative-modified Picard iteration scheme and the Anderson acceleration algorithm. It is found that bitumen extraction involves filtration and desaturation phases, and the transition between them can be identified from the evolution with time of extracted liquid volume and flow rate. An analytical description of the filtration phase is developed to predict the evolution of the liquid layer thickness above the cake during centrifugation. Numerical and analytical models presented in this work can be used in a fitting procedure to determine hydraulic properties of oil sand cake. Effects of centrifugal force and solvent mass fraction on the predicted fraction of extracted diluted bitumen are investigated.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207