MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964742692 · doi:10.2118/142293-ms

Stay in the "Box": A Consistent Method for Configuring (Loading) Reciprocating Compressors to Optimize Performance

2011· article· en· W1964742692 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

VenueSPE Production and Operations Symposium · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicModeling, Simulation, and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocating compressorGas compressorReliability (semiconductor)Reciprocating motionRange (aeronautics)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringSet (abstract data type)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reciprocating compressors are a vital element in the production of onshore natural gas and oil but there is no accepted method for configuring compressors consistently to optimize performance. Most configurations (setting the compressor’s allowable operating range, load and capacity) are done based on an undocumented method unique to the individual doing the configuration, using inconsistent data and parameters with multiple and varying safety factors. This reduces the compressor’s effectiveness and in the end limits production. A structured method that relies on constructing and staying in an operating diagram "box" using set parameters and data has been developed to enhance compression effectiveness. This method helps achieve a common understanding among operations, maintenance and engineering personnel and consistently configures reciprocating compressors for optimized performance, increased reliability and safe operation. The method is explained and the results of implementing the method in a major onshore gas field are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.230 · 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