MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154351907

AAPG Studies in Geology No. 48 / SEG Geophysical References Series No. 11, Chapter 5: High-resolution Ground-magnetic (HRGM) and Radiometric Surveys for Hydrocarbon Exploration: Six Case Histories in Western Canada

2002· article· en· W2154351907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leonard A. LeSchack, David R. Van Alstine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRadiometric datingRemanenceNatural remanent magnetizationPetroleumHydrocarbon explorationMineralogyPetroleum explorationMagnetic surveyMagnetic anomalyGeochemistryGeophysicsPaleontologyMagnetizationMagnetic field
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Western Canada, and probably elsewhere around the world, enhanced zones above microseeping hydrocarbon reservoirs can exhibit distinctive magnetic signatures that are characteristic of the reservoir. These distinctive magnetic signatures have proven to be invaluable for hydrocarbon exploration, and we have achieved 85% exploration success using ground-based magnetic and radiometric techniques in Western Canada. Differences in timing and duration of microseepage and differences in composition and pressure of the microseeping hydrocarbon gases from separate petroleum systems probably control the magnetic mineralogy, magnetic grain-size distributions, magnetic susceptibility, and natural remanent magnetization (NRM) directions in the magnetically enhanced zones. Together, these differences can yield diagnostic residual (remanent + induced) short-spatial-wavelength magnetic anomalies above different reservoirs.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.239
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 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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207