MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040164388 · doi:10.1190/1.3525367

Seismic petrophysics and isotropic-anisotropic AVO methods for unconventional gas exploration

2010· article· en· W2040164388 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Goodway, Marco A. Pérez, John L. Varsek, Christian Abaco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)Cenovus Energy (Canada)Apache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsGeologyTight gasNatural gasPetroleum engineeringHydraulic fracturingPorosityPermeability (electromagnetism)PetrologyBrittlenessDrillingFracture (geology)Unconventional oilNatural gas fieldGeotechnical engineeringOil shalePaleontologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploration and drilling for natural gas in North America has moved radically away from conventional reservoirs to focus on unconventional reservoirs such as tight gas sands and shales. These reservoirs have low porosity and near-zero permeability with gas stored in natural fractures and within the matrix porosity. Economic gas production requires hydraulic fracture stimulation to open connections to existing natural fractures or matrix porosity, and successful stimulation depends on the formation's geomechanical brittleness being capable of supporting extensive induced fractures. However, despite adequate stimulation, significant variations exist between wells in expected ultimate recovery (EUR) due to the heterogeneity of these resource plays. Consequently, predicting natural fractures or fracture-prone “sweet spots” is essential to optimize development of such plays.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations203
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207