Partial Least Squares Regression of Oil Sands Processing Variables within Discrete Event Simulation Digital Twin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil remains a major contributor to global primary energy supply and is, thus, fundamental to the continued functioning of modern society and related industries. Conventional oil and gas reserves are finite and are being depleted at a relatively rapid pace. With alternative fuels and technologies still unable to fill the gap, research and development of unconventional petroleum resources have accelerated markedly in the past 20 years. With some of the largest bitumen deposits in the world, Canada has an active oil mining and refining industry. Bitumen deposits, also called oil sands, are formed in complex geological environments and subject to a host of syn- and post-depositional processes. As a result, some ores are heterogeneous, at both individual reservoir and regional scales, which poses significant problems in terms of extractive processing. Moreover, with increased environmental awareness and enhanced governmental regulations and industry best practices, it is critical for oil sands producers to improve process efficiencies across the spectrum. Discrete event simulation (DES) is a computational paradigm to develop dynamic digital twins, including the interactions of critical variables and processes. In the case of mining systems, the digital twin includes aspects of geological uncertainty. The resulting simulations include alternate operational modes that are characterized by separate operational policies and tactics. The current DES framework has been customized to integrate predictive modelling data, generated via partial least squares (PLS) regression, in order to evaluate system-wide response to geological uncertainty. Sample computations that are based on data from Canada’s oil sands are presented, showing the framework to be a powerful tool to assess and attenuate operational risk factors in the extractive processing of bitumen deposits. Specifically, this work addresses blending control strategies prior to bitumen extraction and provides a pathway to incorporate geological variation into decision-making processes throughout the value chain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".