MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122599327 · doi:10.3133/ds69x

Geologic assessment of undiscovered hydrocarbon resources of the Western Oregon and Washington Province

2011· article· en· W2122599327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael E. Brownfield, Ronald R. Charpentier, Troy A. Cook, Timothy R. Klett, Richard M. Pollastro, Christopher J. Schenk, Phuong A. Le

Bibliographic record

VenueData series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPetroleumGeological surveySubmarine pipelineFossil fuelSource rockNatural gasGeochemistryMining engineeringOceanographyPaleontologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Oil and Gas Assessment is to develop geology-based hypotheses regarding the potential for additions to oil and gas reserves in priority areas of the United States, focusing on the distribution, quantity, and availability of oil and natural gas resources. The USGS has completed an assessment of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in western Oregon and Washington (USGS Western Oregon and Washington Province 5004). The province includes all of Oregon and Washington north of the Klamath Mountains and west of the crest of the Cascade Range, and extends offshore to the 3-mi limit of State waters on the west and to the International Boundary in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Canada on the north. It measures about 450 mi north-south and 50 to 160 mi east-west, encompassing more than 51,000 mi2. The assessment of the Western Oregon and Washington Province is geology based and used the total petroleum system (TPS) concept. The geologic elements of a TPS include hydrocarbon source rocks (source rock maturation and hydrocarbon generation and migration), reservoir rocks (quality and distribution), and traps for hydrocarbon accumulation. Using these geologic criteria, two conventional and one unconventional (continuous) total petroleum systems were defined, with one assessment unit (AU) in each TPS: (1) the Cretaceous-Tertiary Composite TPS and the Western Oregon and Washington Conventional Gas AU, (2) the Tertiary Marine TPS and the Tertiary-Marine Gas AU, and (3) the Tertiary Coalbed Gas TPS and the Eocene Coalbed Gas AU, in which a cell-based methodology was used to estimate coalbed-gas resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData seriesSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207