MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041200642 · doi:10.4043/18014-ms

ODP/IODP 'CORK' Long-Term Subseafloor Hydrogeological Observatories

2006· article· en· W2041200642 on OpenAlexaff
Keir Becker, Earl E. Davis, A. T. Fisher, Adam Klaus, D. Schroeder, M.A. Storms, T. Pettigrew, C.G. Wheat

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationHistoryArchaeologyGeologistLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since 1991, 22 reentry holes of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) have been instrumented with long-term, sealed-hole, subseafloor hydrogeological observatories known as CORKs. This paper briefly reviews the scientific objectives of these installations and the evolution of the CORK designs, from the original single-seal CORK to several more recent models allowing isolation of multiple formation intervals in a single hole. Introduction Since 1989, engineers of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP, 1983-2003) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP, 2003-) have been working with ODP/IODP scientists to install long-term, sealed-hole, subseafloor hydrogeological observatories in selected reentry holes in hydrologically active areas on the deep ocean seafloor. The great majority of ODP/IODP holes are non-reenterable single-bit holes that are cored, logged, and simply abandoned. Roughly 1-3% of ODP/IODP holes are cased and equipped with reentry cones to allow deepening after bit changes and/or deployment of specialized instrumentation in the holes. Early experience indicated that, when such reentry holes were left open after penetrating hydrologically active formations, many of them acted as hydraulic shunts between the ocean bottom water and the formations. These holes were essentially long-term perturbation experiments that limited what could be learned about in-situ hydrogeological state and processes with any sort of measurements while the holes remained open. These limitations provided the motivation to develop the capability to seal the holes and allow simultaneous deployment of longterm monitoring instruments in the sealed holes, with data loggers and sampling ports accessible at the wellhead. Original Single-Seal CORKs The earliest model included a plug at casing hangers in the throat of the reentry cone, much as a cork seals your favorite wine bottle (Fig. 1). That geometry provided an obvious name for the experiment, and the acronym ‘CORK’ was coined; ‘CO’ stands for circulation obviation because the plug shut off the perturbing circulation induced if the hole were left open, and ‘RK’ stands for retrofit kit because the experiment could be retrofit to any existing reentry hole, whether drilled twenty years ago or the day before. The plug or ‘CORK body’ incorporated a central bore, allowing for deployment of a sensor string down the drillstring into the sealed hole; the sensor string was suspended on a data logger that sealed into CORK body. Typical sensor strings have included pressure gauges above and below the seal, thermistor cables extending deep into the hole, and self-contained fluid samplers driven by osmotic pumps (‘OsmoSamplers’) suspended on the thermistor cables. Wellhead valves have also allowed submersible access to the sealed holes. Multi-Zone CORK Models The scientific successes of the early CORKs also revealed an essential limitation: that the single-seal configuration averaged signals from the formation, and did not discriminate contributions from local hydrogeological structures and stratification. Thus, starting in 1998, three newer models were developed with multiple packer seals to separately isolate different hydrologically active zones in the subseafloor.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207