MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141769977 · doi:10.1071/aseg2015ab042

Logging during diamond drilling - Autonomous logging integrated into the Bottom Hole Assembly

2015· article· en· W2141769977 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Greenwood, Anton Kepic, Anna Podolska, Christian Dupuis, G. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingLoggingBoreholeMeasurement while drillingScientific drillingPetroleum engineeringMud loggingDiamondGeologyDrilling fluidEngineeringMechanical engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Logging total count gamma data while diamond drilling an HQ borehole has been achieved using an autonomous shuttle. The shuttle is integrated into the Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA) prior to drilling. Logging is initiated at the beginning of each core run and the shuttle unit continuously logs at 1 second intervals. Continuous logging combined with the relatively slow rate of penetration of diamond drilling results in high fidelity logs at 1-5 cm intervals. The data is collected by the drilling crew, who download and email the data at the end of each core run for near real time analysis. Little to no interruption to the normal drilling process is experienced once the Shuttle has been integrated into the BHA. Autonomous logging while diamond drilling enables the collection of in-situ rock property measurements, without the risks and costs associated with later wireline logging. This value is added to the drilling process at little expense.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207