MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151391821 · doi:10.1002/2014jb011263

Characteristics of fluid‐induced resonances observed during microseismic monitoring

2014· article· en· W2151391821 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Baptiste Tary, Mirko van der Baan, Bruce Sutherland, David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResonance (particle physics)Hydraulic fracturingSupercritical fluidFluid dynamicsMechanicsSlurryVolumetric flow rateMicroseismChemistryMaterials scienceGeologyPetroleum engineeringPhysicsAtomic physicsSeismologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three groups of resonances are observed during a two‐stage hydraulic experiment recorded by 12 three‐component geophones. The injected fluid is composed of a slurry of mostly water and proppant plus some supercritical nitrogen. Resonance characteristics are estimated using an autoregressive model. Three resonance models are investigated: fluid‐filled cracks, nonlaminar fluid flow, and repetitive events in terms of anticipated resonance frequencies, quality factors, and amplitudes. The observed resonances are very stable and positively correlated with either the slurry flow or the nitrogen injection rate, which is in contradiction with the repetitive events and fluid‐filled crack models, respectively. Resonances obtained by numerical simulations of an unstable jet agree with the main characteristics of most observed resonances. Our observations suggest that variations in resonance frequencies are mainly driven by variations in fluid flow, whereas quality factors are more sensitive to the fluid composition through variations in nitrogen injection rate. This study also suggests that resonance frequencies and quality factors can provide complementary information for real‐time monitoring of fluid injection into reservoirs, for hydraulic stimulations, geothermal operations, carbon capture, and storage or fluid movement during volcano eruptions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207