MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106799724 · doi:10.1190/1.1579576

Petroleum geophysics in Ukraine

2003· article· en· W2106799724 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Burianyk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleumGeologyPetroleum engineeringGeophysicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the 96 geologic provinces that contain practically all the world's known petroleum reserves, four lie in whole or part within Ukraine. According to the ranking of the U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000, the Dnieper-Donets Basin is 45th in importance, the Pannonian Basin 71st, the Azov-Kuban Basin 81st, and the North Carpathian Basin 82nd. Why, then, does Ukrainian oil and gas potential not shine more brightly on the petroleum industry's radar screen? The answer lies in a complex history and a no less complicated present. This article can hardly do the subject justice but will, I hope, raise interest and provide a stimulus to more study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicMining and Gasification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207