MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113648463 · doi:10.1306/07141111038

Computer modeling bioturbation: The creation of porous and permeable fluid-flow pathways

2012· article· en· W2113648463 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. La Croix, Murray K. Gingras, Shahin E. Dashtgard, S. George Pemberton

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioturbationGeologyFluid dynamicsPorosityFlow (mathematics)Petroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringPetrologyGeomorphologyMechanicsSediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Computer modeling of trace fossils (Skolithos, Thalassinoides, Planolites, Zoophycos, and Phycosiphon) and ichnofacies (Skolithos, Cruziana, and Zoophycos ichnofacies) is undertaken to assess the impact of bioturbation on porosity and permeability trends in sedimentary media. Model volumes are randomly populated with the digitally modeled trace fossils to test for connectivity between burrows. The probability of vertical and lateral interconnections is compared with bioturbation intensity. The results of the simulations indicate that biogenic flow networks develop at low bioturbation intensity, between 10 and 27.5% bioturbation (BI-2). However, the efficiency of connectivity is controlled by the architecture of the burrows. For all trace-fossil and ichnofacies models, regardless of trace-fossil orientation, continuous horizontal and vertical connectivity across the sediment volume is achieved within a 0 to 10% range in bioturbation. In subsurface aquifers and petroleum reservoirs, the presence of bioturbation can significantly influence fluid flow. In particular, for marine sedimentary rocks, where burrows are more permeable than the surrounding matrix, a greater degree of three-dimensional burrow connectivity can produce preferred fluid-flow pathways through the rock. Recognizing these flow conduits may enable optimization of resource exploitation or may contribute to increasing reserve estimates from previously interpreted nonreservoir rock.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 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

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207