MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041543531 · doi:10.2118/114174-ms

Role of Natural Fractures and Slot Porosity on Tight Gas Sands

2008· article· en· W2041543531 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roberto Aguilera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsGeologyDiagenesisTight gasPorosityNatural gasPetroleum engineeringDrillingFracture (geology)Natural (archaeology)Petroleum reservoirNatural resourceFossil fuelWork (physics)Mining engineeringPetrologyEarth scienceGeochemistryGeotechnical engineeringPaleontologyEngineeringHydraulic fracturingMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Naturally fractured tight gas sands have come of age in the United States. They will also come of age in Canada within the next few years and in the rest of the world within the next few decades. This work discusses the role of natural fractures and slot porosity on tight gas sands as they relate to geoscience, drilling, completion, stimulations, petrophysics, well testing, and reservoir engineering. It is concluded that natural fractures and/or slot porosity play, and will continue to play, an important role in the successful and economic production of gas from tight sands. Research leading to innovating technologies that presumably will reduce capital and operating costs will play a key role in the development of this resource. Understanding the rocks and the regional variability of fracture distribution and diagenesis is the cornerstone of this research.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207