MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108919261

Interpolation, PSTM, AVO, and a Thin Gas Charged Viking Shoreface in West Central Alberta

2008· article· en· W2108919261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee Hunt, Scott Hadley, Mark Hadley, Jon Downton, Bashir Durrani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInterpolation (computer graphics)Sampling (signal processing)AssertionExploitFlow (mathematics)Multivariate interpolationGeomorphologyGeometryComputer scienceMathematicsBilinear interpolationStatisticsImage (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Exploration and development of the Viking in West Central Alberta is challenging because this prolific zone is deep, structured, and very thin relative to tuning thickness. It represents an attractive economic prize, but even on the extensive 3D coverage that exists in the area, reservoir quality indicators such as porosity-thickness (Phi-H) are difficult to accurately predict. We attempted to exploit the AVO response of the gas charged zone on migrated gathers to obtain a more accurate estimate of Phi-H. A coarse 3D geometry led to the need to use a 5D interpolation prior to migration to minimize the migration artifacts that arise due to the insufficient sampling of the seismic wavefield. This interpolation migration flow was the most effective flow relative to other methods tried on this data, and represents an important new paradigm for land AVO analysis. This assertion is validated by 29 well ties and the resultant maps which are consistent with the structural erosional model of the Viking.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207