MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W179023821 · doi:10.3133/fs20123148

Assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Canada, 2012

2013· article· en· W179023821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debra K. Higley

Bibliographic record

VenueFact sheet · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural basinPetroleumGeologySedimentary rockSedimentary basinGeological surveySource rockCretaceousGeochemistryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a geoscience-based assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of provinces within the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin primarily comprises the (1) Alberta Basin Province of Alberta, eastern British Columbia, and the southwestern Northwest Territories; (2) the Williston Basin Province of Saskatchewan, southeastern Alberta, and southern Manitoba; and (3) the Rocky Mountain Deformed Belt Province of western Alberta and eastern British Columbia. This report is part of the U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Resources Project assessment of priority geologic provinces of the world. The assessment was based on geoscience elements that define a total petroleum system (TPS) and associated assessment unit(s). These elements include petroleum source rocks (geochemical properties and petroleum generation, migration, and accumulation), reservoir description (reservoir presence, type, and quality), and petroleum traps (trap and seal types, and timing of trap and seal formation relative to petroleum migration). Using this framework, the Elk Point-Woodbend Composite TPS, Exshaw-Fernie-Mannville Composite TPS, and Middle through Upper Cretaceous Composite TPS were defined, and four conventional assessment units within the total petroleum systems were quantitatively assessed for undiscovered resources in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFact sheetSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207