MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281560772 · doi:10.1002/aic.17783

Adsorption behavior modeling of confined hydrocarbons in shale heterogeneous nanopores by the potential theory

2022· article· en· W4281560772 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaohu Dong, Qilan Luo, Jing Wang, Huiqing Liu, Zhangxin Chen, Jinze Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNanoporeOil shaleAdsorptionDeformation (meteorology)Shale gasChemical physicsChemistryMechanicsMaterials scienceThermodynamicsMineralogyChemical engineeringNanotechnologyComposite materialGeologyPhysical chemistryPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, a new method is proposed to quantificationally evaluate the effect of pore heterogeneity on the adsorption behavior of fluids in nanopores. First, the assumptions of furrowed, sinusoidal, and ravine pore surfaces are proposed to represent the heterogeneous nanopores in shale. Under the assumptions, a multicomponent potential theory of adsorption (MPTA) is coupled with Peng–Robinson equation of state (PR EOS) to model the adsorption behavior of hydrocarbons in nanopores. And, the geometrical and chemical heterogeneities in shale nanopores are, respectively, simulated by a spatial alteration and an amplitude deformation on potential energy. The fluid–fluid interaction is modeled by PR EOS, and the fluid‐pore wall surface interaction is simulated by a Steel 10‐4‐3 model for slit‐like nanopores and by a modified Lennard–Jones (LJ) 12‐6 model for cylindrical ones. Thereafter, the results of our theory are compared against the experimental data of shale rocks to validate its accuracy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207