Characterization of four petrologic end members from Alberta oil sands and comparison between different mines and sampling times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research was performed on four petrologic end members samples from Syncrude's North Mine collected in 2012 (NM12), i.e. marine clay (MC), marine sand (MS), estuarine clay (EC), and estuarine sand (ES). The mineralogical compositions of the four petrological end members were determined using X‐ray diffraction (XRD), quantitative XRD (QXRD), elemental analysis, and particle size distribution (PSD) measurements. Bulk samples from the four petrologic end members, after bitumen removal, were mainly composed of clay minerals (kaolinite, illite, chlorite, and mixed‐layer expandable clays) and non‐clay minerals such as quartz, carbonates, feldspars, and traces of TiO2 minerals, gypsum, and pyrite. Bulk samples of the clay end members were composed of significantly higher amounts of clay minerals and lower amounts of quartz compared with the bulk samples of the sand end members. XRD analysis of oriented preparations (air dried‐54 % RH and ethylene glycolated) of the < 0.2 μm fractions of the four end members showed that interstratified illite‐smectite of high (∼30 %) and low (∼10 %) expandability were observed only in clay‐rich end members, i.e. NM12‐EC and MC, respectively. Kaolinite‐smectite was only found in the < 0.2 μm fraction of the NM12‐MC with an expandability between 5 and 10 %. Interstratification of illite‐smectite was observed in the < 0.2 μm fraction of NM09‐MC and EC samples but the expandability was only 10 % for both fractions. However, kaolinite‐smectite was not found in the same fraction for NM09‐MC and EC. ES and EC had the highest and lowest bitumen contents, respectively, for the NM12, NM09, and AM10 samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".