MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038972742 · doi:10.1190/1.3064146

Rock properties in low-porosity/low-permeability sandstones

2009· article· en· W2038972742 on OpenAlex

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

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)MineralogyGeotechnical engineeringPetrologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tight gas sand reservoirs are formally defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as reservoirs with less than 0.1 md permeability. Although this is a permeability-based definition, these reservoirs frequently also have very low porosities (< 10%). Reservoirs that currently classify as “tight gas sands” account for approximately 19% of the total U.S. gas production and may contain upwards of 35% of the U.S. recoverable gas resources. In the U.S. Rockies alone, tight gas-sand reservoirs may contain upwards of 41.7 trillion cubic feet of gas; considerably more gas may exist in tight gas sand reservoirs at depths > 15 000 ft (Oil and Gas Investor, 2005).

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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