MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2019009274 · doi:10.1139/t00-101

Nonequilibrium consolidation model for pressured shale layers

2001· article· en· W2019009274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zekâi̇ Şen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Oil shaleDimensionless quantityGeologyMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringFluid dynamicsPhysicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simplified mathematical model is developed for fluid migration as a separate phase in the consolidation process due to sedimentation. The consolidation mechanism is presented and the sedimentation ratio is related to the consolidation of shales. The model is composed of simple differential equations which relate the mass balance equation to the linear fluid flow law and pressure increment. In the derivation of equations the fluid and shale compressibilities are taken into consideration. In addition, the shale porosity decrease with depth is included in the consolidation equations. These equations are converted into dimensionless standard forms, which are universally valid for any fluid migration or shale consolidation calculations. The equations are solved numerically by the finite difference method, and the results are presented as graphs referred to as type curves. These type curves are simple tools for those who do not want to be concerned with the mathematical aspects but are interested particularly in quantitative answers concerning the fluid-migration and consolidation processes.Key words: consolidation, dimensionless length, fluid migration, nonequilibrium, shale.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→