Predicting Viscosities of Heavy Oils and Solvent–Heavy Oil Mixtures Using Artificial Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the potential of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to accurately predict viscosities of heavy oils (HOs) as well as mixtures of solvents and heavy oils (S–HOs). The study uses experimental data collected from the public domain for HO viscosities (involving 20 HOs and 568 data points) and S–HO mixture viscosities (involving 12 solvents and 4057 data points) for a wide range of temperatures, pressures, and mass fractions. The natural logarithm of viscosity (instead of viscosity itself) is used as predictor and response variables for the ANNs to significantly improve model performance. Gaps in HO viscosity data (with respect to pressure or temperature) are filled using either the existing correlations or ANN models that innovatively use viscosity ratios from the available data. HO viscosities and mixture viscosities (weight-based, molar-based, and volume-based) from the trained ANN models are found to be more accurate than those from commonly used empirical correlations and mixing rules. The trained ANN model also fares well for another dataset of condensate-diluted HOs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it