Forties infill drilling: A case history documenting an extensive infill drilling campaign driven by 4‐D seismic technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PreviousNext No AccessSEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006Forties infill drilling: A case history documenting an extensive infill drilling campaign driven by 4‐D seismic technologyAuthors: Steve AdilettaDavid AllardAlistair GrayAlison JaggerDonald KeirKen MacAllisterPhilip RoseSteve AdilettaApache North Sea Ltd, David AllardApache North Sea Ltd, Alistair GrayApache North Sea Ltd, Alison JaggerApache North Sea Ltd, Donald KeirApache North Sea Ltd, Ken MacAllisterApache North Sea Ltd, and Philip RoseApache North Sea Ltdhttps://doi.org/10.1190/1.2370139 SectionsAboutPDF/ePub ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Permalink: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2370139FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By4D seismic — Past, present, and futureIan Jack2 May 2017 | The Leading Edge, Vol. 36, No. 5 SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006ISSN (print):1052-3812 ISSN (online):1949-4645Copyright: 2006 Pages: 3541 publication data© 2006 Copyright © 2006 Society of Exploration GeophysicistsPublisher:Society of Exploration Geophysicists HistoryPublished: 06 Oct 2006 CITATION INFORMATION Steve Adiletta, David Allard, Alistair Gray, Alison Jagger, Donald Keir, Ken MacAllister, and Philip Rose, (2006), "Forties infill drilling: A case history documenting an extensive infill drilling campaign driven by 4‐D seismic technology," SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts : 2948-2952. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2370139 Plain-Language Summary PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".