MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968203980 · doi:10.1190/1.1487254

An integrated 3-D reservoir characterization at Riverton Dome Field, Wyoming

2001· article· en· W1968203980 on OpenAlexaff
Steven G. Siguaw, Jane E. Estes-Jackson, Stephen E. Ingraham, Dan W. Shewmake

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDome (geology)GeologyField (mathematics)Reservoir modelingCharacterization (materials science)ArchaeologyGeomorphologySeismologyGeographyPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Riverton Dome is a prime example of a mature Rocky Mountain oil and gas field that has benefited from new drilling based on a recent 3-D seismic survey. The field was discovered in 1949 through surface geology and seismic (Hinton, 1957; Borgerding, 1989) and was acquired by Snyder Oil Corporation (SOCO) in 1993. In 1998 SOCO acquired a 38-mi2 3-D seismic survey over Riverton Dome Field with funding from Belco Energy, Tom Brown Incorporated, and the U.S. Department of Energy to determine reservoir distribution, structural configuration, and compartmentalization.

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 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 score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207