Intercomparison of simulation models for CO{sub 2} disposal in underground storage reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An intercomparison study between simulation codes for terrestrial sequestration of CO{sub 2} is proposed. The objectives are, on the one hand, to focus and evaluate key processes through numerical simulation and, on the other, to explore the strengths of different codes and achieve acceptance of such codes for use in the development of geologic systems for CO{sub 2} disposal. This will be carried out through the study of a series of test problems by groups using their simulation codes. A progression from simple and uncoupled to increasingly complex and coupled problems is envisioned. The proposed study will attempt to involve interested technical groups worldwide, and will proceed through an iterative process of problem definition, solution comparison, discussion and refinement. The Internet will be used as a medium for communicating and organizing activities, and for a flexible exchange of information and documentation of results. In addition, it is planned to hold a series of workshops. The present write-up includes an initial set of eight proposed test problems and represents the first step in the process. Readers are encouraged to communicate with us at the email address above to indicate their interest and to provide suggestions and input.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".