MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164824875 · doi:10.1109/cimca.2005.1631383

Expert System Knowledge Management for Laser Drilling in the Oil and Gas Industry

2006· article· en· W2164824875 on OpenAlexafffund
Chefi Ketata, Mysore G. Satish, M. R. Islam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsPetroleum industryLaser drillingDrillingPetroleum engineeringFossil fuelExpert systemComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main drilling technique in the oil and gas industry has been rotary. Nevertheless, during the last decade, laser drilling has been investigated. Intensive research work has examined the soundness of this new drilling technique and its profitability. The laser drilling literature has confirmed that this novel technique performs better and faster than the conventional rotary drilling technique. Since the drilling time is reduced, the drilling costs are decreased, and the project profitability is increased. Furthermore, laser drilling eradicates the problem of contaminated water, soil, and rocks since water is used instead of toxic muds while drilling. This paper introduces the knowledge management process for an expert system that is the laser drilling system optimizer (LDSO). Then the development stages are described. The LDSO is an innovation since it is the first expert system developed for laser drilling in the oil and gas industry. It is a knowledge-based optimization system

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207