MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interfacial Areas in Athabasca Oil Sands

2017· article· en· W2733175807 on OpenAlexafffund
Peyman Mohammadmoradi, Saeed Taheri, Apostolos Kantzas

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMaersk OilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSuncor Energy IncorporatedCanadian Natural Resources LimitedAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesCMG Reservoir Simulation FoundationDevon Energy Corporation
KeywordsOil sandsPorous mediumImbibitionWettingSaturation (graph theory)Multiphase flowGeologyPorosityMineralogyAsphaltMicromodelMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determination of interfacial areas is crucial for accurate identification of multiphase subsurface flow processes, e.g., in situ water treatment, contaminant transport, phase change, convection/diffusion, and colloid adsorption/desorption/migration. Pore-scale imaging and simulation techniques provide an appealing opportunity to explicitly predict such geometrical characteristics of saturated and unsaturated porous media. Here, synthetic unconsolidated sand packs in a wide range of grain arrangements and size distributions are reconstructed to extensively capture all possible heterogeneous pore-level geometries in the McMurray Formation, the primary bitumen formation in the Athabasca oil sands deposit. Multiphase fluid occupancies throughout the partially saturated media during drainage and imbibition are predicted applying a direct pixel-wised pore morphological model, incorporating a wetting phase layer covering rock/solid surfaces. The postprocessing results are verified using two-phase experimental data points and images, demonstrating a remarkable variation of the interfacial area as a function of saturation profile, rock configuration, and displacement scenarios. Empirical models are proposed to predict the bulk and meniscus areas using average particle diameter and porosity as input parameters.

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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