PR-461-14602-R02 Sample Mixing and Centrifugal Forces on Density and Sediment-Water Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crude oil being transported by pipeline varies widely in density, viscosity, sulfur content, and other fluid properties. In a custody transfer, both parties are concerned with the quantity and the quality of the crude oil since this determines the monetary value of the transaction. The objective of this project is to investigate various factors that can impact accurate determination of the density, sediment and water content of crude. The findings will be critical to improve current procedures, including proper sample mixing and handling, analytical methodologies, and operation parameters, so that reliable and accurate custody transfer can be provided to all involved parties internationally. This project investigated the impact of mixing and analytical methodologies on crude density and S and W determination. Operating parameters tested included mixing time (3 or 5 minutes), mixing system (new or old) and sample size (3 or 7 liters). Density determination was conducted by a thermos-hydrometer test and a digital density meter and the results were compared. S and W content was quantified by the centrifuge method and Karl Fischer titration and the results were compared. For the centrifuge method, the impact of two centrifugal forces on S and W results was also studied. There is a related webinar.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.023 |
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".