MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028142305 · doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103378

Population-balance modeling of CO2 foam for CCUS using nanoparticles

2020· article· en· W3028142305 on OpenAlexaff
Øyvind Eide, Martin A. Fernø, Steven L. Bryant, Anthony R. Kovscek, Jarand Gauteplass

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsCoalescence (physics)Carbon nanofoamRheologyPorous mediumBubblePopulationMaterials sciencePulmonary surfactantChemical engineeringPorosityShear thinningComposite materialMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foam implementation for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) can greatly improve CO2 mobility control, resulting in enhanced hydrocarbon production and carbon storage capacity. The use of nanoparticles (NP) to create robust foam structures has recently gained attention. Local foam generation and coalescence dynamics can be described by mathematical models. Here we address knowledge gaps for NP foam in porous media by tracking the bubble density (nf) of NP foam data spatially and temporally using an established surfactant (SF) population-balance model. We suggest a reduced shear-thinning effect, compared to SF, to accurately model NP CO2 foam flow in both the high- and low-quality regime. A NP foam rheological transition appeared at gas fraction fg = 0.85. The nf parameter increased linearly with distance from inlet for NP foam, with reduced CO2 mobility and improved displacement efficiency compared to co-injections of water and CO2.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural Gas Science and EngineeringSame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207