MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077112019 · doi:10.1002/2013wr013534

Measuring miscible fluid displacement in porous media with magnetic resonance imaging

2014· article· en· W2077112019 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen E. Muir, Oleg V. Petrov, Konstantin Romanenko, Bruce J. Balcom

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorous mediumSaturation (graph theory)Materials sciencePorosityDisplacement (psychology)Dispersion (optics)TRACERNuclear magnetic resonanceOpticsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The development of new quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technologies open new opportunities for measurements of mass transport in porous media. The current work examines a simple miscible displacement process of H 2 O and D 2 O in porous media samples. Laboratory measurements of dispersion in porous media traditionally monitor the effluent intensity of an injected tracer. We employ MRI to obtain quantitative water saturation profiles, and to measure dispersion in rock core plugs. The saturation profiles are modeled with PHREEQC, a fluid transport modeling program. We demonstrate how independent magnetic resonance measurements can be employed to estimate three important input parameters for PHREEQC, mobile porosity, immobile porosity, and dispersivity. Bulk Carr Purcell Meiboom Gill (CPMG) T 2 distribution measurements were undertaken to estimate mobile and immobile porosity. Bulk alternating‐pulsed‐gradient‐stimulated‐echo (APGSTE) measurements were undertaken to measure dispersivity. The imaging method employed, T 2 mapping Spin Echo Single Point Imaging (SE‐SPI), also provides information about the pore size distributions in the rock cores, and how the fluid occupancy of the pores changes during the displacement process.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207