MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6966388535 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.2658

Microstructural characterization of a Canadian oil sand

2013· preprint· en· W6966388535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltOil sandsPorosityScanning electron microscopeCharacterization (materials science)MicrostructureHigh resolutionThin section

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microstructure of oil sand samples extracted at a depth of 75 m from the estuarine Middle McMurray formation (Alberta, Canada) has been investigated by using high resolution 3D X-Ray microtomography ($μ$CT) and Cryo Scanning Electron Microscopy (CryoSEM). $μ$CT images evidenced some dense areas composed of highly angular grains surrounded by fluids that are separated by larger pores full of gas. 3D Image analysis provided in dense areas porosity values compatible with in-situ log data and macroscopic laboratory determinations, showing that they are representative of intact states. $μ$CT hence provided some information on the morphology of the cracks and disturbance created by gas expansion. The CryoSEM technique, in which the sample is freeze fractured within the SEM chamber prior to observation, provided pictures in which the (frozen) bitumen clearly appears between the sand grains. No evidence of the existence of a thin connate water layer between grains and the bitumen, frequently mentioned in the literature, has been obtained. Bitumen appears to strongly adhere to the grains, with some grains completely being coated. The curved shape of some bitumen menisci suggests a bitumen wet behaviour.

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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→