Re-Fracturing: Evaluation, Design, and Implementation of a Chester Oil Well in SW Kansas
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper will highlight the methodology used to successfully re-stimulate a well that had been unsuccessfully stimulated from previous treatments. A field example will present a well, which was previously treated on two occasions and show the subsequent implementation of a successful treatment that displaced both Ottawa and resin coated sand from the original fracture, enabling the third treatment to be successfully pumped. The initial evaluation methods that were utilized, which included pressure buildup (PBU), reciprocal productive index (RPI), and treatment pressure analyses, will show the damage that can occur when overly aggressive stimulation treatments are applied and present a methodology for evaluating a damaged well. A treatment was specifically designed to remove the proppant pack damage and create an effective stimulation for the character of the reservoir rock. The pressure response from the third treatment will demonstrate removal of the original and the creation of an effective stimulation. Post-treatment production data and analysis is also presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it