Extending riverbed filtration design velocity for horizontal wells from model to prototypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extending riverbed filtration design velocity for horizontal wells from model to prototypes.Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le génie des biosystèmes au Canada 54:1.1-1.6.The design velocity of axial flow through a horizontal well pipe, which was suggested to be about 1 m s -1 in a recent model study, was evaluated for its feasibility on prototypes.In order to calculate the head loss during the flow through a horizontal well pipe, the Darcy-Weisbach formula was analyzed using Euler-Cauchy method.When the frictional resistance to the flow in the model well was compared with the one to the flow in prototypes, the latter was found to be smaller than the former.However, the design axial velocity obtained from the model study was also applicable to prototypes.Although uniform discharge intensity is assumed over the entire length of the well and model experimental data is required to calculate head loss in prototype wells, the results of this study may prove useful in predicting well production rate and in determining the required design diameter of horizontal wells.However, further verification with actual prototype is needed.Keywords:
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".