MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378230670 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202310819

Hydrogen-brine interfacial tension at subsurface conditions: Implication for hydrogen geo-storage

2023· article· en· W4378230670 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Hosseini, Yuri Leonenko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrineHydrogenHydrogen storageSurface tensionSalinityThermodynamicsMaterials scienceChemistryEnvironmental scienceGeologyPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Underground hydrogen storage is a promising technique to store a high volume of hydrogen in deep geological formations that can be recovered for energy generation if there is a need. The interaction between the hydrogen and resident formation brine can strongly influence the design and implementation of underground hydrogen storage. In this regard, the interfacial tension between hydrogen and formation brine is an important factor that affects the pore-scale hydrogen distribution and storage capacity. However, the experimental data for the interfacial tension of hydrogen with brine in subsurface conditions are scarce, and thus far, a limited number of studies have measured the interfacial tension between hydrogen and brine. Therefore, herein, an explicit correlation was proposed to calculate the interfacial tension of hydrogen and brine systems at different geo-storage conditions. The developed model is a function of the temperature, pressure, and salinity of the brine. The overall error analysis for the model exhibits fair agreement with the reported experimental data. The developed model outperformed the published correlations in the literature and resulted in R squared and AAPRE values of 0.997 and 0.738, respectively.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→