MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A RE‐APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATION OF ROCK‐EVAL PYROLYSIS TO SOURCE ROCK STUDIES IN THE NIGER DELTA

2005· article· en· W2053436060 on OpenAlex
A. Akinlua, Taiwo Ajayi, Daniel M. Jarvie, B. B. Adeleke

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

VenueJournal of Petroleum Geology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKerogenOil shaleNiger deltaSource rockGeologyPyrolysisTotal organic carbonGeochemistryExtraction (chemistry)MineralogyMining engineeringDeltaStructural basinEnvironmental chemistryGeomorphologyPaleontologyChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thirty four shale samples from the Tertiary Agbada Formation were analysed for TOC and Rock‐Eval pyrolysis parameters in order to evaluate the effect of oil‐based mud contamination on source‐rock characterization. The samples were obtained from five wells in the offshore Niger Delta over a depth range of 5,460ft to 11,580ft. The results indicated that the raw (unextracted) samples were dominated by Type III kerogen. However, after extraction, both Types II/III and III kerogen were identified, consistent with previous studies. These results demonstrate that it is essential that shale samples should be extracted prior to TOC and Rock‐Eval pyrolysis for accurate source‐rock evaluation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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