MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054714243 · doi:10.2118/152600-ms

The Impact of Dipping Velocity Models on Microseismic Event Locations

2012· article· en· W2054714243 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

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsNalcor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismBoreholeGeologyHydraulic fracturingSeismologyEvent (particle physics)Fracture (geology)GeodesyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Once a microseism is detected, its source location can relatively easily be identified if the velocity characteristic of the medium traversed by the recorded waveforms is known. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Velocity models are used to estimate, with some degree of confidence, microseismic event locations. This work shows how a simple modification to the velocity model, accounting for a 4.5-degree dip supported by geological data, significantly impacts the event final locations during a borehole-based hydraulic fracturing monitoring job. Overall geometry of the hydraulically-induced fracture system interpreted (e.g. height) is the most affected. For instance, when a preliminary event location is selected without introducing the observed structural component of the beds, these measurements could change by as much as fifty percent. For the reservoir engineer, sometimes unaware of the assumptions made at the microseismic processing level, these differences could imply major changes to the field development plans. These results underscore the importance of integrating all available data and implementing well known quality controls before using microseismic monitoring data for reservoir analysis.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.238 · 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