MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083414857 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0267.1

4D seismic-to-well tying, a key step towards 4D inversion

2012· article· en· W2083414857 on OpenAlexaff
P. Thore, C. Hubans

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)OverburdenOffset (computer science)GeologySeismic inversionAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsGeometryAzimuthSeismologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Calibrating the 4D signal at the well with information obtained from production data is essential for it to be used quantitatively. We have developed a model-based inversion method to estimate the changes of elastic parameters in the reservoir due to production at the well. Our scheme is based on the observation that flow behavior is constrained by the dynamic properties of the layer (i.e., permeability), and, therefore, a layered model should be used to parameterize the inversion. The inversion scheme considers traveltime (inside and below the reservoir, but not in the overburden) and impedance effects implied by the change of elastic parameters (inside the reservoir). Therefore, even at zero offset, we can separate changes in density from changes in P-velocity. When using multiple offset data, we can use an exact formulation for the reflectivity if the base logs (density, P-velocity, and S-velocity) are available, otherwise, an approximation to the exact form can be used. Theoretical and practical analyses have shown that P-velocity is the best resolved parameter followed by density and, finally, S-velocity. Compared to classical data-driven inversion, our procedure introduces fewer artifacts and is less sensitive to tuning because the layered model parameterization introduces the missing low and high frequencies (although the seismic bandwidth plays an essential role in the resolution). This 4D inversion at the well is part of a larger scheme that uses the results obtained by this scheme to extend the inversion to the whole data set.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207