MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2135298560 · doi:10.1190/segam2013-0170.1

Mapping Middle Triassic Doig Sandstone reservoirs in northeast British Columbia using seismic attributes

2013· article· en· W2135298560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Satinder Chopra, Ritesh Kumar Sharma, James Keay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyTectonicsLithologySeismic inversionGeomorphologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Doig sandstone reservoirs have historically produced oil and gas in northeast British Columbia and northwest Alberta, Canada. These reservoirs occur in the study area as N-S trending linear sandstone geobodies 10-30 m in thickness at many places, and some tens of kilometers long. The challenge is the determination of the reservoir sands 20m in thickness from seismic data that has an average bandwidth of 10-60 Hz. In the area under study, comprising the Fireweed, Buick Creek West and the Stoddard areas in northeast British Columbia, the reactivation of the deeper fault structures also have some tectonic control on the Doig sandstones of interest. Therefore, the challenge is to identify not only the spatial variability of these Doig sands but also crosscutting faults and fractures. We address these challenges by first enhancing the bandwidth of the available seismic data using spectral inversion to estimate thin bed reflectivity, followed by relative acoustic impedance and unconstrained waveform classification to map the reservoir heterogeneity. This is followed by generation of coherence and curvature attributes to detect minor faults and fractures.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→