MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907781017 · doi:10.1190/1.3167786

Monitoring CO2 storage during EOR at the Weyburn-Midale Field

2009· article· en· W1907781017 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

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryPetroleum engineeringField (mathematics)Environmental scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrocarbons both occur as natural accumulations within the Earth and share an intertwined industrial history. Research in the 1950–1960s demonstrated that CO2 had potential as a miscible agent for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), but commercial-scale implementation of this method was limited by the availability of a large supply of inexpensive CO2. By the mid-1980s, CO2 from large natural occurrences in the southwestern U.S. was being transported by pipeline to oil fields in the Permian Basin of Texas, which allowed deployment of CO2 flooding as a large-scale tertiary EOR method. It is estimated that tertiary oil recovery using CO2 could add as much as 13 billion barrels to existing recoverable resources in the U.S. (USDOE, 2002).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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