MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311944477 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2379487/v1

Inhibition of Methanogenesis through Redox Processes in Oil Sands Tailings

2022· preprint· en· W4311944477 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alsu Kuznetsova, Iram Afzal, Navreet Suri, Petr Kuznetsov, Tariq Siddique

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSyncrude
KeywordsTailingsMethanogenesisOil sandsEnvironmental chemistryMethaneWaste managementBiodegradationEnvironmental scienceChemistryAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bitumen extraction from oil sands ore in Alberta, Canada, has generated > 1.3 billion m3 of tailings that a slurry of fine silt and clay, residual bitumen and diluent hydrocarbons, deposited in ponds. Key environmental issues associated with oil sands tailings include biogenic greenhouse gas emissions (methane and carbon dioxide), water toxicity and its potential seepage, water reuse and solid consolidation. Methane produced during anaerobic microbial metabolism of hydrocarbons is emitted from tailings ponds and end-pit lakes where tailings are reclaimed. This study tests one of the strategies to minimize methane emissions by using iron minerals and other terminal electron acceptors in the inhibition of methanogenesis due to the biodegradation of residual hydrocarbons under alternative, non-methanogenic redox conditions. Our results reveal the potential of indigenous microbes to biodegrade hydrocarbons in the tailings under iron- and sulfate-reducing conditions channelling carbon flow from hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→