MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970639690 · doi:10.1002/aic.13778

Permeability mapping in naturally heterogeneous sandstone cores by magnetization prepared centric‐scan sprite

2012· article· en· W1970639690 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantin Romanenko, Bruce J. Balcom

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)AnisotropyCore sampleMineralogyPorositySprite (computer graphics)Sedimentary rockPorous mediumFaciesGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceOpticsCore (optical fiber)GeomorphologyComposite materialPhysicsChemistryGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A time‐efficient MRI method suitable for quantitative two‐dimensional (2‐D) mapping of permeability in sedimentary rock cores, and granular media samples is discussed. The images of porosity and mean axial velocity in the plane transverse to the average flow direction are essential to determine 2‐D distribution of permeability in a core sample. The 2‐D permeability mapping is particularly useful for discrimination of bedding and lamination layers, fractures and fault facies that occur in sedimentary rocks. The proposed method combines the 13‐interval APGSTE scheme and centric‐scan SPRITE. The APGSTE scheme is known to substantially reduce gradient‐related errors in diffusion measurements. The SPRITE method provides quantitative information on fluid content within the core samples. The experiment time is critically reduced when only a few samples near the q ‐space origin are collected. The APGSTE‐SPRITE method is illustrated through mapping of 2‐D permeability and 3‐D velocity field in naturally heterogeneous sandstone cores. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2012

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207