MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008274520 · doi:10.1190/1.3106722

Fault imaging in hydrothermal dolomite reservoirs: A case study

2009· article· en· W2008274520 on OpenAlexaffabout
Osareni C. Ogiesoba, Bruce S. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFault (geology)SeismologyNoise (video)Hydrocarbon explorationHorizonDeconvolutionAlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most hydrocarbon fields found within the Ordovician Trenton and Black River Groups of the eastern United States and eastern Canada are associated with basement-related faults. These faults are best imaged by 3D seismic technology. Because of environmental conditions, seismic data often are contaminated by noise that masks fault terminations and reduces signal-to-noise ratio. As a result, seismic horizons are discontinuous, calculated coherence values are affected adversely, and horizon interpretation and fault identification are difficult, if not impossible. Poststack processing is required to attenuate this noise before an optimal interpretation can be done. We conducted a three-step poststack processing flow to attenuate noise and highlight fault terminations. Noise-reducing algorithms consist of frequency-space (f-x) deconvolution, zero-phase filtering, and τ-p filtering. The structural grain of major faults identified with these techniques agrees with the regional strike of major faults previously defined in the area. These faults were confirmed by drilling results. Our calculated semblance of cosine of phase provides better fault definition than does regular coherency and serves as an alternative attribute for mapping faults. The processing sequence could apply in areas with similar geologic settings and noise problems.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207