Improving Stochastic Evaluations Using Objective Data Analysis and Expert Interviewing Techniques
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Probabilistic treatment of parameters in economic analysis has become widespread in the petroleum industry. Methods consist of either Monte Carlo simulation or approximations of full stochastic distributions for use with decision tree analysis of varying complexity. Unfortunately, however, although many agree that proper quantification of uncertainties is critical for stochastic evaluation of project economics, post audits indicate the description of key variables to be suboptimal. Studies across multiple industries confirm that it is more common for actual parameters used in project economics to fall outside of their predicted ranges, than inside. Many suggest this to be due to both motivational and cognitive biases – repeatedly resulting in commonly stated ranges, which are too narrow. The authors contend that narrow, or sub optimal, variable ranges often result from a lack of use, or misuse, of available data and methodology to counteract inherent bias. In exploration prospect and play valuation, where lack of direct data is an issue, analogous data may be used, but may not be well understood, or well thought through as to how well it represents the prospects and plays the practitioner is attempting to describe. In fact, in the absence of data, many use distributions not commonly found in nature. Hence, it is the goal of this paper to present a heuristic overview of subsurface parameter distributions for commonly used properties in stochastic economic analysis, and describe an expert interviewing methodology to improve variable descriptions. The authors propose that it is the combination of both relevant objective data and quantification of subjective uncertainty that will improve variable descriptions. This paper presents the results of a survey of some of the exploration/production areas in North America, along with the distributions encountered and properties of those distributions, from empirical data. Examples are from the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Permian Basin, and the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, with a view to gain insight into the distributions and trends of the properties of key subsurface variables. In addition, this paper presents the probability method to achieve better descriptions of variables. The authors suggest that although several subjective uncertainty assessment methods exist, the probability method is preferred due to its ability to counteract biases. This paper describes the steps of the probability method for range variable assessment, and explains the tools and rationale for each step.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle