MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2063927529 · doi:10.1190/1.1845260

Case study from northwest China: application of Biot‐Gassmann's equation to identify sand and isolate oil from the prestack seismic data

2004· article· en· W2063927529 on OpenAlexaff
Rong Mu, Xifeng Chen, Bin Hu, Yajun Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrestackBiot numberGeologySeismologyChinaGeographyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There exist many techniques to identify deeply buried sand within reservoir. For example, the inverted impedance can be used to distinguish subsurface shale or sand. However, most of these techniques are based on and inverted from post-stack seismic data. Alternatively, potential information is possibly extracted from prestack seismic data to improve the capability to distinguish sand from shale and to map oil spatial distribution. In this paper, we first use Biot-Gassmann's equation to derive elastic moduli and Biot coefficient. Then substitute water with oil gradually to test elastic parameter's sensitivity to the varying water saturation. These parameters include acoustic velocity, shear velocity, effective density, acoustic impedance, shear impedance, ratio of acoustic velocity versus shear velocity, and Poisson's ratio. Using the experience formula to further isolate fluid component to monitor fluid variations. Based on the derived information, we extract elastic parameters from the common shot gather from which to distinguish sand from shale. Then the final oil spatial distribution is mapped along the target horizon.

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)0.001
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→