Geologic analysis of the Upper Jurassic Haynesville Shale in east Texas and west Louisiana: Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hammes et al. (2011) provide an excellent technical compilation of the geology of the Haynesville shale-gas play in east Texas and west Louisiana. However, their citation crediting Chesapeake Energy Corporation solely with the commercial discovery and naming the play is poorly founded. The article cited (Durham, 2008) does not support that conclusion beyond the fact that Chesapeake was one of the first to announce the play. Furthermore, Durham's article in the AAPG Explorer did not attempt to document the discovery of the play, but instead was an interview of companies who, at that time, had publicly announced their interest. Brittenham (2010, slide 9) presented the early history of Encana in the play, which predates the activities and announcements by Chesapeake and others. Hammes et al. (2011) also do not mention the significant potential of the mid-Bossier Shale (Brittenham, 2010, slides 16, 20, and 24) that overlies the Haynesville Shale over much of the area mapped by Hammes et al. A summary of the events and timelines from publicly available data sources (IHS Energy) illustrates that, remarkably, at least three companies had an early knowledge of the play, drilled wells in vastly separate areas, and had early well-production test data with sufficient gas flow …
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".