MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048428745 · doi:10.2118/89070-pa

Oil-Viscosity Predictions From Low-Field NMR Measurements

2005· article· en· W2048428745 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. Bryan, Apostolos Kantzas, C. Bellehumeur

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsViscosityViscosity indexNMR spectra databaseAsphaltEnhanced oil recoveryChemistryThermodynamicsMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Spectral linePetroleum engineeringGeologyChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Canada contains vast reserves of heavy oil and bitumen. Viscosity determination is key to the successful recovery of this oil, and low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) shows great potential as a tool for estimating this property. An NMR viscosity correlation previously had been developed that is valid for order-of-magnitude estimates over a wide range of viscosities and temperatures. This correlation was built phenomenologically, using experiments relating NMR spectra to viscosity. The present work details a more thorough investigation into oil viscosity and NMR, thus providing a theoretical justification for the proposed correlation. A novel tuning procedure is also presented, whereby the correlation is fitted using the Arrhenius relationship to improve the NMR viscosity estimates for single oils at multiple temperatures. Tuning allows for NMR to be potentially used in observation wells to monitor thermal enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects or online to monitor the viscosity of produced-fluid streams as they cool.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations107
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207