MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118499230 · doi:10.1111/1755-6724.12488

Using a Modified GOI Index (Effective Grid Containing Oil Inclusions) to Indicate Oil Zones in Carbonate Reservoirs

2015· article· en· W2118499230 on OpenAlexaff
Nai Zhang, Pan Wenlong, TIAN Long, YU Xiao-qing, Jin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Geologica Sinica - English Edition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTarim basinCarbonateGeologyStylolitePetroleum engineeringCarbonate rockFluid inclusionsGeochemistryMineralogyMaterials scienceCalciteSedimentary rockPaleontologyQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The GOI (grains containing oil inclusions) index is used to distinguish oil zones, oil‐water zones and water zones in sandstone oil reservoirs. However, this method cannot be directly applied to carbonate rocks that may not have clear granular textures. In this paper we propose the Effective Grid Containing Oil Inclusions (EGOI) method for carbonate reservoirs. A microscopic view under 10× ocular and 10× objective is divided into 10×10 grids, each with an area of 0.0625 mm×0.0625 mm. An effective grid is defined as one that is cut (touched) by a stylolite, a healed fracture, a vein, or a pore‐filling material. EGOI is defined as the number of effective grids containing oil inclusions divided by the total number of effective grids multiplied by 100%. Based on data from the Tarim Basin, the EGOI values indicative of the paleo‐oil zones, oil‐water zones, and water zones are >5%, 1% 5%, and <1%, respectively. However, the oil zones in young reservoirs (charged in the Himalayan) generally have lower EGOI values, typically 3%–5%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Geologica Sinica - English EditionSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207