DOE/DOT Crude Oil Characterization Research Study, Task 2 Test Report on Evaluating Crude Oil Sampling and Analysis Methods, Revision 1 - Winter Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Crude Oil Characterization Research Study is designed to evaluate whether crude oils currently transported in North America, including those produced from “tight” formations, exhibit physical or chemical properties that are distinct from conventional crudes, and how these properties associate with combustion hazards that may be realized during transportation and handling. The current report presents results from Task 2, investigating which commercially available methods can accurately and reproducibly collect and analyze crude oils for vapor pressure and composition, including dissolved gases. This issue, Revision 1 – Winter Sampling, incorporates additional seasonal data and compositional analysis results that have become available since publication of a prior report, SAND2017-12482, released in December 2017. Both reports compare performance of commercially available methods to that of a well-established mobile laboratory system that currently serves as the baseline instrument system for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Crude Oil Vapor Pressure Program. The experimental matrix evaluates the performance of selected methods for (i) capturing, transporting, and delivering hydrocarbon fluid samples from the field to the analysis laboratory, coupled with (ii) analyzing for properties related to composition and volatility of the oil, including vapor pressure, gas-oil ratio, and dissolved gases and light hydrocarbons. Several combinations of sample capture and analysis were observed to perform well in both summer and winter sampling environments, though conditions apply that need to be considered carefully for given applications. Methods that perform well from Task 2 will then be utilized in subsequent Task 3 (combustion studies) and Task 4 (compositional analyses of multiple crude types), to be addressed in subsequent reports.
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 | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".