MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005324816 · doi:10.2118/95332-ms

Effect of EOS Characterization on Predicted Miscibility Pressure

2005· article· en· W2005324816 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscibilityEquation of stateThermodynamicsCharacterization (materials science)Representation (politics)Tube (container)MechanicsMaterials scienceStatistical physicsPhysicsPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An equation of state (EOS) is not a unique representation of the PVT behavior against which it is tuned. Two equations of state with different parameters may appear to predict the same experimental PVT data about equally well. However, they may give very different simulated slim-tube recovery as well as analytical predictions of minimum miscibility pressure. In addition to PVT data, tuning the EOS against slim-tube data is advisable. This paper illustrates the above remarks for three different reservoir fluids that have different amounts of PVT data to tune the EOS against. These examples show that what appear to be equally acceptable EOS characterizations with regard to PVT data predictions can predict differences in miscibility pressure as much as 500 to 1000 psia. In an example simulation in a heterogeneous reservoir cross section, these differences in EOS characterization caused 7 to 22% differences in predicted incremental recovery.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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