MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411978600 · doi:10.1063/5.0262557

Cloud point pressure estimation of gas-soluble chemicals in carbon dioxide by machine learning paradigms

2025· article· en· W4411978600 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Vaferi, Farshid Torabi, Asghar Gandomkar, Yaser Ahmadi, Mohsen Mansouri

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCarbon dioxidePoint (geometry)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CO2-based enhanced oil recovery operations not only increase the recovery factor but can result in reducing the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. It is possible to improve the effectiveness of CO2 injection into the reservoir by incorporating gas-soluble chemicals. Since the experimental measurement of the dissolution pressure of chemicals in CO2 [i.e., cloud point pressure (CPP)] is costly and time-consuming, it is necessary to develop a model for its reliable estimation. Although some thermodynamic-based correlations are proposed to estimate the cloud point pressure (CPP), their inaccuracy and limited ranges of application are challenging. Consequently, this study utilizes artificial neural networks, least-squares support vector regression, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems to accurately anticipate the CPP value as a function of chemical type, chemical concentration, and temperature. Both the correlation matrix analysis and standardized coefficient proved that the CPP increases by all these explanatory features so that the chemical concentration is the most important variable. Tuning the models' hyperparameters and monitoring their accuracy in the cross-validation and testing stages confirm that the general regression neural network is the most accurate paradigm for estimating the CPP value. This model anticipates 381 literature records with a mean absolute error of 8.09, an absolute average relative deviation percent of 3.27%, and a regression coefficient of 0.974 21. This straightforward machine learning paradigm not only broadens our understanding of the chemical dissolution in CO2 but also helps appropriately design the CO2-based enhanced oil recovery scenarios.

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)0.000
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207