MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IMPLEMENTING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK FOR PREDICTING CAPILLARY PRESSURE IN RESERVOIR ROCKS

2013· article· en· W2092670755 on OpenAlexaff
Farshid Torabi

Bibliographic record

VenueSpecial Topics & Reviews in Porous Media An International Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Research CentreUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapillary pressureCapillary actionPorosityGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Saturation (graph theory)Petroleum reservoirRelative permeabilityPetroleum engineeringArtificial neural networkMineralogyGeotechnical engineeringPorous mediumMaterials scienceChemistryArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capillary pressure is one of the main parameters which is widely used to characterize and describe reservoir rock properties. Although some methods have been proposed to determine capillary pressure in reservoir rock, these methods may not be able to determine the capillary pressure accurately. In this study, an artificial neural network (ANN) algorithm was developed to estimate the capillary pressure in a hydrocarbon reservoir in the Middle East. A complete data set of several core samples includes porosity (Φ), normalized porosity (Φz), permeability (k), rock quality index (RQI),flow zone indicator (FZI); water saturation and drainage capillary pressure curves were applied to develop the ANN model. The ANN model which was designed in this study contains two separate parts. The first part categorized the reservoir rock into discrete groups with similar ranges of porosity and permeability, and the second part estimated the capillary pressure for each group. The results of this study revealed that ANN is an appropriate method to estimate the capillary pressure in reservoir rocks, particularly those which have heterogeneity in rock properties.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpecial Topics & Reviews in Porous Media An International JournalSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207