MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Principal Points in Cementing Geothermal Wells

2013· article· en· W1851096684 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in petroleum exploration and development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeothermal gradientPetroleum engineeringHigh pressureGeothermal energyGeologyHigh energyCementSummitEngineeringEngineering physicsMaterials scienceGeophysicsGeographyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geothermal energy is becoming an important source of energy and its importance will be increasing in the future. When we drill geothermal wells, we encounter high temperature zones and may also encounter high pressure areas. Cementing in high temperature environments such as geothermal wells is very challenging. The survey that was sent to High-Pressure-High-Temperature (HPHT) professionals at the HPHT Summit meeting in 2012, showed Cement Design is one of the biggest concerns for HPHT operations and it is one of their technology gaps. Temperatures as high as 200 °C-400 °C could destabilize the setting of the cement. If the well has both high temperature and high pressure, the cementing process becomes much more complex. This article discusses various aspects of cementing procedures and considerations for geothermal wells including cements design considerations, crucial problems, and some technology solutions. Key words : Geothermal energy; HPHT; Geothermal well

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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