MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490649547 · doi:10.3968/6573

Economic Evaluation of Waterflood Using Regression and Classification Algorithms

2015· article· en· W1490649547 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in petroleum exploration and development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmRegressionRegression analysisArtificial neural networkDimension (graph theory)Machine learningInteger (computer science)Statistical classificationMathematicsVariable (mathematics)Computer scienceData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three regression algorithms and three classification algorithms have been applied to forecast economics of waterflood. The three regression algorithms are the regression of support vector machine ( R -SVM), the back-propagation neural network (BPNN), and the multiple regression analysis (MRA), while the three classification algorithms are the classification of support vector machine ( C -SVM), the naive Bayesian (NBAY), and the Bayesian successive discrimination (BAYSD). In general, when all these six algorithms are used to solve a real-world problem, they often produce different solution accuracies. In this paper, the solution accuracy is expressed with the total mean absolute relative residual for all samples, R (%), and it is proposed that an algorithm is applicable if R (%) ≤ 10 . A case study at the Nebraska Panhandle has been used to validate the proposed approach. This case study consists of two problems: regression and classification. The only difference between these two problems is the predicted variable in regression problem is real number, while the predicted variable in classification problem is integer number. And the integer number is determined from the real number by using proposed convertion rules. For the regression problem, R -SVM, BPNN and MRA are inapplicable because their R (%) values are 140, 51 and 293, respectively. For the classification problem, however, C -SVM, NBAY and BAYSD are all applicable since their R (%) values are all 0. From the case study, it is concluded that: a) For classification problems, the preferable algorithm is C -SVM, NBAY, or BAYSD, and BAYSD can also serve as a promising dimension-reduction tool; b) for regression problems, the preferable algorithm is BPNN, but MRA can serve as a promising dimension-reduction tool only when the studied problems are linear; c) if BPNN is inapplicable for a regression problem because its R (%) > 10, it is proposed to change this problem from regression to classification by reasonable conversion rules, then apply C -SVM, NBAY, or BAYSD; and d) comparing with C -SVM, BAYSD is conditionally better than C -SVM. Key words : Regression; Classification; Solution accuracy; Conversion rules; Dimensionality reduction; Nebraska Panhandle

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.207 · 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