MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035490663 · doi:10.1080/10916466.2011.569811

The Prediction of Bubble-point Pressure and Bubble-point Oil Formation Volume Factor in the Absence of PVT Analysis

2014· article· en· W2035490663 on OpenAlex
Saber Kh. Elmabrouk, Abdulrazag Y. Zekri, Ezeddin Shirif

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubble pointBubbleVolume (thermodynamics)ThermodynamicsMechanicsPoint (geometry)Materials scienceChemistryPetroleum engineeringMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Up to now, there has not been one specific correlation published to directly estimate the bubble-point pressure in the absence of pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) analysis. Presently, there is just one published correlation available to estimate the bubble-point oil formation volume factor (FVF) directly in the absence of PVT analysis. Multiple regression analysis technique is applied to develop two novel correlations to estimate the bubble-point pressure and the bubble-point oil FVF. The developed correlations can be applied in a straightforward manner by using direct field measurement data. Separator gas oil ratio, separator pressure, stock-tank oil gravity, and reservoir temperature are the only key parameters required to predict bubble-point pressure and bubble-point oil FVF.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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