MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017496853 · doi:10.1190/1.3657071

Practical seismic petrophysics: The effective use of log data for seismic analysis

2011· article· en· W2017496853 on OpenAlexaff
Tad M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsGeologyStratigraphySeismic to simulationSeismologyOil shaleSeismic inversionGeotechnical engineeringPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quick scan of the SEG web site shows that the phrase “seismic petrophysics” has been used explicitly in the title of a paper or abstract six times, the earliest of which was by Williams et al. in 1996 (“The Hugoton cross-well survey; A direct look at stratigraphy, seismic petrophysics and shale anisotropy”). However, the first attempt at a definition and an expanded description of “seismic petrophysics” was published by Wayne Pennington in The Leading Edge in 1997 (“Seismic petrophysics: An applied science for reservoir geophysics”). He defines seismic petrophysics as follows: “…the purposeful application of rock physics theory, as calibrated by laboratory and well measurements, to the interpretation of seismic data…”

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207