Bibliographic record
Abstract
Candidate time‐lapse down‐hole gravity measurands are compared for monitoring water front advancements at the inter‐well scale. The ability to sense small temporal changes to already minimal density contrasts presented by typical OWC problems drives performance requirements of new down‐hole technology being developed by Lockheed Martin (Meyer, 2007). The question naturally arises regarding which component of gravity is best observed, as the miniature interferometric device can be configured to sense one of several gravity components. The concept of measuring differential gravity is introduced and simulated data are compared to respective inline and cross gravity gradients. Distributed density contrasts associated with gradual water saturation changes due to homogeneous sweep show 50 m advancement increments are observable beginning at 200 m proximity to monitoring wells if differential gravity is measured to 1 uμGal. Likewise, a change from ideal sweep to breakout is observed at 130 m proximity. Corresponding sub‐Eötvös‐level inline and cross gradient signals are deemed unobservable. The differential gravity measurement is nominally drift‐free and immune to invaded zone irregularities, so can be collected as part of a periodic wireline service without undue concern regarding accurate downhole replacement. Permanent emplacement in i‐fields is also possible. By virtue of common mode rejection, differential gravity surveys are also free of the multiple environmental corrections typically required of surface micro‐gravity acquisitions (Hare, et. al., 1999, and Ferguson, et. al., 2007).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".