MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042274783 · doi:10.1190/1.3567257

An introduction to this special section: Shales

2011· article· en· W2042274783 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce S. Hart, Colin M. Sayers, Alan P. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySection (typography)Sedimentary rockDrillingSource rockSpecial sectionGeochemistryPetrologyMining engineeringPaleontologyPetroleum engineeringStructural basinEngineering physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, mudstones (shales) have been of interest to the petroleum industry because they form seals or source rocks. In geophysical circles, mudstones have also been of interest because their sometimes pronounced velocity anisotropy can lead to imaging problems and because of overpressures that can be defined by other types of velocity anomalies. Only within the past decade, and due largely to advances in drilling and stimulation techniques, have mudstones been seriously regarded as reservoirs in their own right. Although mudstones form approximately 70% of sedimentary rocks, much remains to be learned about these fine-grained rocks. For example:

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207