История создания подземных хранилищ газа
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, 100th anniversary of underground gas storing is being celebrated. The fi rst successful gas repressing into underground layers was conducted in Canada in 1915. Project implementation was preceded with serious scientifi c, explorative, engineering and design works and experiments realized by specialists from different countries. Despite the fact that natural gas is known for ages, at fi rst it has not been used widely. Even in the middle of XIX century there was no practical method to store gas as, for example, timber, coal and oil. Often, after searching out, gas has been burned or «set free», and it caused signifi cant gas losses. At the end of XIX century, when gas was admitted to be a valuable resource, its market promotion, as well as construction and maintenance of pipelines have been accentuated. Due to the remoteness of most wells from ultimate consumers, there emerged a necessity to construct a system for gas supply and distribution. So, storing became an instrument of gas supply adjusting. Initially a concept of natural gas storing was suggested by the USA Geological Service in 1909. And William Judge fi rst stated an idea of underground gas storing. Experiments revealed, that after injection into close sand gas can be extracted back. Judge realized the project in Welland Country (Ontario, Canada) at the depleted gas fi eld. For the sake of justice, before 1914 there have been some other attempts (not fi xed) to repress gas into partially depleted sand formations, but these were only researches and did not suppose storing of large amounts of gas. Positive result of Welland Field experiment made Iroquois Gas Company to apply technology of underground gas storing at the depleted Zoar Gas Field (New-York, USA) in 1916. So, in the USA was created the fi rst industrial underground gas storage with capacity of 62 mln. m3 being exploited nowadays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.008 |
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".