MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063913005 · doi:10.2118/139770-pa

Using Surface Deformation To Estimate Reservoir Dilation: Strategies To Improve Accuracy

2010· article· en· W2063913005 on OpenAlexaff
Asanga S. Nanayakkara, R.C.K. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTikhonov regularizationInverse problemParametric statisticsRegularization (linguistics)InverseSurface (topology)Distribution (mathematics)Dilation (metric space)GeologyVolume (thermodynamics)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisStatisticsPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Reservoir dilat(at)ions, which are induced by a variety of subsurface injection operations, propagate to the surrounding formations and extend up to the ground surface, resulting in surface deformations. The surface deformations can be measured using various technologies and can be inverted to infer reservoir dilations (volume change distribution). This paper discusses the mathematical aspects of the inverse process in detail and investigates factors affecting the accuracy of the inverse solution through a parametric study. Based on results of the parametric study, the volume change distribution in the lateral direction can be estimated with both high accuracy and high resolution by applying the Tikhonov regularization technique. The volume change distribution in the vertical direction can also be resolved to a certain extent by providing further information regarding the desired solution in terms of an initial estimate. Strategies to improve accuracy of the inverse solution in the lateral as well as in the vertical directions are also discussed.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207