MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048609886 · doi:10.1080/10916460701287607

A Critical Review of Electromagnetic Heating for Enhanced Oil Recovery

2008· review· en· W2048609886 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

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMagnetic and Electromagnetic Effects
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam injectionPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceWater floodingFlooding (psychology)Enhanced oil recoveryMaterials scienceWaste managementGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A variety of enhanced oil recovery methods have been developed and applied to mature and depleted reservoirs in order to improve the efficiency of primary (pressure deleted) and secondary recovery (water flooding) methods. In thermal recovery methods, cyclic steam and hot water injection, steam and hot water flooding, in situ combustion, electrical heating, and electromagnetic heating are used. However, each of these methods is highly energy intensive. Electromagnetic enhanced oil recovery method is a relatively new method and has been of great interest in the recent years. This article presents a critical review of electromagnetic heating of reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.288 · 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