MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802178009 · doi:10.1021/acs.jced.8b00125

Bubble Pressure Measurement and Prediction for <i>n</i>-Hexadecane and <i>n</i>-Eicosane + Cyclohexane, Methylcyclohexane, and Ethylcyclohexane Binary Mixtures from 303.15 to 393.15 K

2018· article· en· W2802178009 on OpenAlexafffund
Sourabh Ahitan, John M. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersConocoPhillipsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTotalShellChina National Offshore Oil CorporationBP
KeywordsMethylcyclohexaneCyclohexaneThermodynamicsAlkaneBubbleBinary numberChemistryHexadecaneMetastabilityBinary systemRefining (metallurgy)HydrocarbonBubble pointPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryToluenePhysicsMechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental vapor–liquid equilibrium (VLE) data for long-chain n -alkane + naphthenic mixtures are scarce in the open literature. In this study, VLE data for representative binary mixtures of naphthenes with long-chain n -alkanes are presented. The selected compounds include two n -alkanes ( n -hexadecane and n -eicosane) and three naphthenes (cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, and ethylcyclohexane). The experimental data are compared with computed bubble pressures using the Peng–Robinson and PC-SAFT equations of state in order to evaluate the accuracy of predictions and to obtain regressed k ij values. Expected applications of these contributions include improved phase behavior model accuracy for hydrocarbon production, transport, and refining applications.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207