Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| June 01, 2003 Integrated Reservoir Studies: by L. Cosentino Burns A. Cheadle Burns A. Cheadle 1Outrider Energy Ltd., 302, 205-9th Ave. SE, Calgary, AB T2G 0R3 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology (2003) 51 (2): 209–211. https://doi.org/10.2113/51.2.209 Article history first online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Burns A. Cheadle; Integrated Reservoir Studies: by L. Cosentino. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 2003;; 51 (2): 209–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/51.2.209 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology Search Advanced Search Integrated Reservoir Studies, by L. Cosentino. Institut Français du Pétrole Publications. Editions Technip, Paris, 2001, 336 pages, 172 figures, 10 tables. Cost: US $85 (English). The notion of conducting a reservoir study in anything other than an “integrated” fashion is anathema to most currently practising geoscientists. The raw complexity attending the interplay of reservoir architecture and dynamic reservoir processes defies a simplistic, monotonic solution to creating a reliable and accurate model affording adequate predictions of future behaviour. Necessity dictates the inclusion of many viewpoints representing several facets of geology, geophysics, reservoir and production engineering, and other disciplines to formulate... You do not currently have access to this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".