On the applicability of regular solution and <scp>Flory‐Huggins</scp> theories to asphaltene liquid mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We critically review two classic, molecular‐based solution theories, the regular solution theory and the Flory‐Huggins theory, in the context of revealing their limited applicability to liquid mixtures containing asphaltenes, a significant fraction of crude oil. Asphaltene molecular structures, either as depicted by the Archipelago model or the island model, are non‐linear (not chain‐like) and rigid, making the application of the aforementioned theories to describe their phase behaviour problematic. In addition, since asphaltenes contain chemical moieties that are able to interact through directional dependent specific intermolecular interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonds), this renders the incorporation of Hildebrand solubility parameters into the theories inappropriate. As a result, the two theories do not always predict the onset and amount of asphaltene precipitation correctly for crude oil under different conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure, chemical composition of crude oil, solvent concentration). It is the hope of this author that researchers in the field channel their efforts into developing a brand‐new solution theory for asphaltene liquid mixtures by taking the key molecular attributes of asphaltenes into account.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".