MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1760110260 · doi:10.2138/am-2004-8-906

Methane hydrate formation in partially water-saturated Ottawa sand

2004· article· en· W1760110260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William F. Waite, W.J. Winters, Douglas Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsClathrate hydrateHydrateMethaneSedimentPorosityGeologyMineralogyCharacterisation of pore space in soilPore water pressureDistilled waterGeotechnical engineeringChemistryGeomorphologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bulk properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediment strongly depend on whether hydrate forms primarily in the pore fluid, becomes a load-bearing member of the sediment matrix, or cements sediment grains. Our compressional wave speed measurements through partially water-saturated, methane hydrate-bearing Ottawa sands suggest hydrate surrounds and cements sediment grains. The three Ottawa sand packs tested in the Gas Hydrate And Sediment Test Laboratory Instrument (GHASTLI) contain 38(1)% porosity, initially with distilled water saturating 58, 31, and 16% of that pore space, respectively. From the volume of methane gas produced during hydrate dissociation, we calculated the hydrate concentration in the pore space to be 70, 37, and 20% respectively. Based on these hydrate concentrations and our measured compressional wave speeds, we used a rock physics model to differentiate between potential pore-space hydrate distributions. Model results suggest methane hydrate cements unconsolidated sediment when forming in systems containing an abundant gas phase.

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 score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations283
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207