MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1802249127 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.08.157

Well Placement Optimization with Geological Uncertainty Reduction

2015· article· en· W1802249127 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Realization (probability)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationRepresentation (politics)Optimization problemPlan (archaeology)Production (economics)AlgorithmMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Well placement optimization aims to determine optimal well locations so that the economic benefit from oil production can be maximized. Geological uncertainty has a significant impact on the optimal well placement plan and therefore has to be considered in the well placement optimization problem. A geological realization reduction framework for well placement under geological uncertainty is proposed in this work. The objective is to optimally select a small subset of realizations and incorporate them into the well placement optimization problem, so as to reduce the computational efforts. A reservoir case study demonstrates that the selected smaller subset of realizations is a very good representation of a larger superset of realizations and can significantly decrease the computational time associated with the well placement optimization problem.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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