Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alberta's oil sands contain an estimated 286 billion m3 (1.8 trillion barrels) of bitumen, including more than 64.5 billion m3 (406 billion barrels) in the Grosmont Carbonate. The Grosmont at Saleski represents a significant resource, which will be developed from pilot to commercial development. The operating company plans to recover bitumen from the Grosmont using solvent-cyclic, steam-assisted gravity drainage (SC-SAGD), beginning with a pilot in the Saleski field. The Grosmont has been noted for drilling challenges relating to lost circulation, including difficulty in cement placement. To address these challenges, lightweight, foamed, thermal cement was specifically engineered, tested, and qualified for use at the pilot. This blend addresses placement challenges and was designed to achieve the mechanical properties required for zonal isolation and well integrity throughout the life of the well. This paper discusses the design and development of the blend using finite-element analysis (FEA) software to evaluate blend suitability, laboratory testing results to confirm basic properties, installation in the pilot wells, and results using ultrasonic cement-inspection tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".