MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2790823660 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23190

Phase boundaries for synthetic light oils and gas condensate mixtures using predictive equations of state with a solid solution model

2018· article· en· W2790823660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khashayar Nasrifar, Jafar Javanmardi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUNIQUACThermodynamicsPhase (matter)Equation of stateGibbs free energyMaterials scienceRegular solutionChemistryActivity coefficientPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryPhysicsNon-random two-liquid model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Phase boundaries for five synthetic paraffinic mixtures were predicted using a previously developed Gibbs energy minimization algorithm. In this method, the vapour and liquid phases were described by cubic equations of state (EoS). These EoS employed a predictive temperature‐dependent group‐contribution binary interaction parameter model. The solid phase was described using a universal quasi‐chemical activity coefficient (UNIQUAC) solid solution model. Using this algorithm, the phase boundaries were calculated from a temperature‐search strategy. The predicted phase boundaries were found to be in good agreement with experimental phase boundaries for vapour‐liquid (VL), solid‐liquid (SL), solid‐vapour (SV), and solid‐vapour‐liquid (SVL) regions. The model was also used to predict the phase boundaries at low temperatures where no experimental data were available.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering→Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→