MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimation of Q from Zero-offset VSP Data in Gas Hydrate-bearing Zone

2011· article· en· W2004605234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joongmoo Byun, Dong‐Geun Yoo, Ho‐Young Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosystem Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffset (computer science)AmplitudeAttenuationClathrate hydrateGeologyHydrateVertical seismic profileWaveletAmplitude versus offsetPorosityMineralogySeismologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsOpticsChemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Q-factor (or Q) that quantifies the attenuation, the intrinsic property of the material, is a very important required factor in extracting useful subsurface material properties such as lithological information, porosity, permeability, viscosity, and the degree of the saturation from the seismic data. When seismic energy propagates through the gas hydrate-bearing zone and a free gas layer below it, the considerable attenuation occurs and affects the amplitude and wavelet shape of recorded seismic data. Thus Q- factor extracted from seismic data can be used to locate the gas hydrate bearing zone and estimate its reserves. The spectral-ratio method has been widely used in computing the frequency-independent Q's from the zero-offset VSP data because of its ease and fastness. We developed a module of the spectral ratio method, and applied it to the synthetic zero-offset VSP data set and field zero-offset VSP data set. The field data were acquired at Mallik 3L-38 gas hydrate research well in Canada. The Q-factors calculated from the synthetic zero-offset VSP data using the spectral ratio method approached closer to the true values for the medium with low Q-factor than high Q-factor. The changes in the Q-factors extracted from the Mallik zero-offset data using the spectral ratio method agreed well with the boundaries of the layers, including gas hydrate zone, depicted in a reflection image.

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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosystem EngineeringSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207