MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060897616 · doi:10.1002/grl.50438

Stress tensor changes related to fluid injection at The Geysers geothermal field, California

2013· article· en· W2060897616 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patricia Martínez‐Garzón, Marco Bohnhoff, Grzegorz Kwiatek, Georg Dresen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryHelmholtz-Alberta Initiative
KeywordsGeothermal gradientGeologyCauchy stress tensorInduced seismicityStress fieldPrincipal stressSeismologyStress (linguistics)Focal mechanismOrientation (vector space)GeophysicsPetrologyViscous stress tensorGeometryShear (geology)MathematicsPhysicsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studying variations of the stress field in reservoirs caused by massive fluid injection is important toward an improved understanding of geomechanical processes involved. We report on spatio‐temporal variations of the local stress tensor orientation at The Geysers geothermal field, California. We apply two stress inversion methods with detailed uncertainty assessments using a selection of events recorded between 2007 and 2012. Our results clearly indicate variations in the orientation of the principal stress axes for the reservoir as a whole showing a normal faulting regime at the reservoir depth between 2 and 3.7 km bounded by a strike‐slip regime above and below. Analyzing the temporal evolution of the stress tensor orientation for a prominent seismicity cluster we observe a clear correlation of changes in orientation for σ1–3 with the highest injection rates. These results suggest that temporal changes in the stress tensor orientation could contribute to characterize reservoirs during stimulation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations120
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207