MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944250284 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12171

An overview of laboratory apparatuses to measure seismic attenuation in reservoir rocks

2014· article· en· W1944250284 on OpenAlexaff
Shankar Subramaniyan, Beatriz Quintal, Nicola Tisato, Erik H. Saenger, Claudio Madonna

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationGeologyEconomic geologyOscillation (cell signaling)Anelastic attenuation factorMeasure (data warehouse)Regional geologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Igneous petrologySeismic waveHydrogeologyAcousticsEngineering geologyGeophysicsSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringMetamorphic petrologyComputer scienceOpticsVolcanismPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Intrinsic wave attenuation at seismic frequencies is strongly dependent on rock permeability, fluid properties, and saturation. However, in order to use attenuation as an attribute to extract information on rock/fluid properties from seismic data, experimental studies on attenuation are necessary for a better understanding of physical mechanisms that are dominant at those frequencies. An appropriate laboratory methodology to measure attenuation at seismic frequencies is the forced oscillation method, but technical challenges kept this technique from being widely used. There is a need for the standardization of devices employing this method, and a comparison of existing setups is a step towards it. Here we summarize the apparatuses based on the forced oscillation method that were built in the last 30 years and were used to measure frequency‐dependent attenuation in fluid‐saturated and/or dry reservoir rocks under small strains (10−8–10−5). We list and discuss important technical aspects to be taken into account when working with these devices or in the course of designing a new one. We also present a summary of the attenuation measurements in reservoir rock samples performed with these apparatuses so far.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207