MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974414719 · doi:10.1007/s13202-014-0105-2

Dynamic tracking model for the reservoir water flooding of a separated layer water injection based on a well temperature log

2014· article· en· W1974414719 on OpenAlexaff
Keliu Wu, Xian‐Fang Li, Ming Ruan, Mingyou Yu, Xiyao Du, Liangliang Jiang, Qiu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaNational Science and Technology Major ProjectChina University of Petroleum, Beijing
KeywordsOffshore geotechnical engineeringWater floodingEnvironmental scienceWater massSaturation (graph theory)Water injection (oil production)Permeability (electromagnetism)Water cutSoil sciencePetroleum engineeringHydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dynamic tracking model for the reservoir water flooding of a separated layer water injection was established. Based on the basic principles of heat and mass transfer, the water profile was determined using a well temperature curve. The Poisson process analysis and stochastic process methods were applied to calculate the water saturation, water breakthrough time, and water cut of each layer in a water-flooded reservoir at any given time. When the oil reservoir was producing water, the water cut predicted by the models, with consideration of the micro-pore distribution, approximated the practical measurement, having an error of less than 5 %. The sample application clearly indicated that larger water injection intensity (water intake per unit thickness) could result in more drastic water saturation variation, earlier water breakthrough, and faster increase in the water cut for layers with numerous high-permeability channels, such as fractures.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum Exploration and Production TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207