MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788468793

An Experimental Investigation of Water Influence on Dry Forward In-situ Combustion

2013· article· en· W2788468793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. I. Kudryavtsev

Bibliographic record

VenueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn situCombustionEnvironmental scienceChemistryMeteorologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In-situ combustion (ISC), also known as fire flooding, is not a new thermal enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique. It is a potential alternative for heavy oil production when other thermal EOR methods are not adequate in certain reservoir conditions. A number of successful ISC application examples have been amply covered in the literature; however, the technique is still not widely used. Additional research on the influence of heterogeneities on ISC performance is required to improve predictability of this promising EOR technique. \n\nTo investigate the influence of initial water saturation on ISC performance, seven combustion tube experiments were conducted. The experimental investigations were performed on a Canadian bitumen sample (7.5 oAPI) from the Peace River region. During the experimental runs, initial bitumen saturation varied between 31.23% and 54.86%. Initial water saturation varied between 0% and 36.87%. \n\nTemperature distribution along the combustion tube and effluent gas composition were recorded for each run and further analyzed. ISC dynamics were also investigated in terms of liquid production and postmortem analysis. Combustion front dynamics were interpreted with a CT scanner and a numerical simulation was used to obtain a chemical reaction scheme for one of the experiments. \n\nThe results showed that initial water saturation is a critical parameter to determine the success of dry forward combustion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207