MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2161513209 · doi:10.1061/9780784413654.032

Interpretation Challenges for In Situ Stress from Mini-Frac Tests in Soft Rocks/Hard Soils

2014· article· en· W2161513209 on OpenAlexafffundabout
N Shafiezadeh, Rick Chalaturnyk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHelmholtz-Alberta Initiative
KeywordsCaprockHydraulic fracturingGeomechanicsGeologyOil shaleGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)Stress (linguistics)Stress fieldPore water pressureEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of measuring in-situ stresses as an essential input factor to caprock integrity analysis is realized for both the technical management of SAGD and CCS projects (design of optimal operating pressure) and environmental reasons (loss of caprock containment). A common technique to carry out stress tests in impermeable and weak rocks, like clay shale, is to combine sleeve fracturing with micro-hydraulic fracturing test for which premature initiation of the fracture at the packer level can be avoided. Following a brief introduction of the micro-hydraulic fracture technique, field data obtained from a micro-hydraulic fracturing test program completed to assess the far field in-situ stress state for a proposed low pressure Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (LP-SAGD) pilot project located southeast of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada has been analyzed. Pressure analyses during and after micro-hydraulic fracturing are used to compute the minimum in situ stress at depth and illustrate the wide variability in the results. Issues surrounding stress alterations in the near wellbore region, low permeability and low injection volumes are shown to contribute to incorrect estimates of the far field minimum in situ stress.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→