MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2005334545 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21830

Computation of the two‐phase flow properties of intermediate‐wet porous media: A pore network approach

2013· article· en· W2005334545 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christos D. Tsakiroglou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapillary pressureImbibitionWettingContact angleCapillary actionPorous mediumRelative permeabilityMaterials scienceSurface finishPermeability (electromagnetism)Fractal dimensionSurface roughnessPorosityMechanicsMineralogyComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringFractalChemistryGeologyMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A pore‐and‐throat network including fractal‐like roughness features along its surface is employed to simulate primary drainage and secondary imbibition by accounting for the quasistatic motion of menisci in pores and throats and varying the contact angle from 0° (strongly water‐wet conditions) to 180° (strongly oil‐wet conditions). The angle of sharpness of roughness features defines a range of contact angles within which the cross‐section of the throat or pore is occupied completely by the one fluid and conditions of intermediate wettability are established. In contrast, outside this range, both fluids may coexist in a pore or throat. Such differences on the fluid distribution at the pore level affect strongly the capillary, electrical and hydraulic properties of the porous medium and are reflected in the capillary pressure, resistivity index and relative permeability curves. The simulator is used to calculate the aforementioned two‐phase flow coefficients as the pore system transits from strongly water‐wet or strongly oil‐wet to intermediate‐wet. The capillary pressure curves are always sensitive to the wetting state and the particular value of the contact angle. The relative permeability and resistivity index curves for secondary imbibition are grouped in families of curves which are sensitive mainly to the wetting state (water‐wet, intermediate‐wet/water‐wet pores, intermediate‐wet/oil‐wet pores, oil‐wet) rather than to the particular value of the contact angle.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering→Same topicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques→French-language works237,207→