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 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 · 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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.031
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