MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070037644 · doi:10.1190/1.3064150

What is the cementation exponent? A new interpretation

2009· article· en· W2070037644 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementation (geology)Interpretation (philosophy)ExponentGeologyStatistical physicsMaterials scienceForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMetallurgyEngineeringPhilosophyPhysicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003, 182 billion barrels of oil reserves worth about US $4.5 trillion were discovered worldwide (Johnson et al., 2004). Moreover, between 1950 and 2002 the total volume of reserves discovered has run to more than 1500 billion barrels for oil and 7.5 trillion cubic feet for gas (Bentley, 2002). More than half of these resources have already been produced and have driven the global economy for the last 50 years.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.017
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.008

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations194
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207