MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968929222 · doi:10.1080/00908310490448091

A Simple Correlation for Estimating Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells

2004· article· en· W1968929222 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Sources · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure dropWellboreMechanicsPetroleum engineeringGeologyFluid dynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Even though it has long been recognized that pressure drop along a horizontal wellbore cannot be neglected, little has been done to estimate the pressure drop with any rigor. The existing models are derived from pipeflow equations, therefore neglecting the presence of radial fluid movement perpendicular to the direction of bulk fluid flow. Recent experimental studies indicate that such a simplistic approach provides an optimistic behavior in a horizontal wellbore. This article presents a realistic representation of the pressure drop in a horizontal wellbore. Equations are derived from rigorous experiments conducted earlier and reported in the literature. They include the effect of radial fluid movement, perforation flow, gas-oil ratio, oil viscosity, bulk flow rate, water saturation and even the presence of asphaltenes in the crude oil. Even though the equations are based on experimental results, predictions apply to field situations. This aspect is verified with certain unpublished field data from USA and Canada. Keywords: asphaltenehorizontal wellsparaffin waxpressure dropviscosityvoid fraction

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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