MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057944945 · doi:10.4043/23744-ms

Exploring Cementing Practices Throughout the Arctic Region

2012· article· en· W2057944945 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostArcticDrillingCasingThe arcticGeologySubmarine pipelineResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceEarth scienceEngineeringComputer scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The development of arctic resources requires wells to be drilled, cased, andcemented through permafrost. Permafrost presents unique challenges, especiallyto cementing operations, requiring a cement system with the capability toperform in the subfreezing permafrost environment. The performance required isthat the cement provides isolation, exhibits low heat of hydration, and setswith sufficient strength to provide casing support. There are also specifictesting requirements detailed in API recommended practices. In the polar region, there are several approaches used in the design of cementsystems. The approaches used in Russia, Canada, and USA (Alaska) areillustrated. The design considerations take into account local conditions andrequirements and use knowledge from cementing practices employed in thedrilling industry. It is important to understand the current cementing practices in use withinthe arctic region. This will allow future improvements as more developmenttakes place and the resources become exploited. Introduction To be successful, hydrocarbon resource development in arctic regions mustmeet the challenges posed by drilling, casing, and cementing wells throughpermafrost layers in the remote arctic environment. The Russian Far East, forexample, is almost completely covered in permafrost and holds significant gasreserves that remain largely untapped due to the remoteness of the area and thecomplexity of drilling through the permafrost layers. Offshore operations areadditionally impacted by sea ice, which does not directly affect cementingoperations; however, the short operational window certainly requires detailedplanning and reliable performance. The remoteness of arctic locations affects all aspects of development, impacting overall logistics: access, timing, and materials delivery andstorage. In addition, several of the challenges faced during the initialdevelopment phases affect the subsequent cement job and cementing practices. These challenges need to be addressed as part of the overall development plan;they include borehole maintenance, casing centralization, and mud conditioningand removal, and all require careful consideration of the permafrost.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.157 · 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