MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017639603 · doi:10.1190/1.3284051

CSEM performance in light of well results

2010· article· en· W2017639603 on OpenAlexaff
Jonny Hesthammer, Aris Stefatos, M. Boulaenko, S. Fanavoll, Jens Danielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocarbon explorationFocus (optics)GeologyHydrocarbonPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceData sciencePaleontologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past several years, we have seen an increasing focus on the use of CSEM technology for hydrocarbon exploration in marine environments and, recently, a number of success stories have been published. The technology has been demonstrated to aid both detection and delineation of hydrocarbon-filled reservoirs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations82
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207