Microseismic geomechanics of hydraulic-fracture networks: Insights into mechanisms of microseismic sources
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microseismic interpretation of hydraulic fracturing requires an understanding of the mechanism of the microseismic sources. Quantitative geomechanical models can predict microseismicity for quantitative comparison with field data and can be used to reconcile 3D seismic earth models, fracture engineering, and fracture monitoring. Because microseismicity represents only one component of the geomechanical response to hydraulic fracturing, a microseismic geomechanics framework can provide insights into the connection with the fracture network. During hydraulic fracturing, microseismicity can be induced by both fluid pressure and stress mechanisms, resulting in wet events directly associated with the fracture network and remote dry events. Accurate interpretation of the hydraulic-fracture characteristics requires distinguishing identification of dry microseismicity not in hydraulic connection with the stimulated fracture network. Predictive microseismic geomechanical models also can be used to infer the primary, conductive hydraulic-fracture networks and to run scenario testing to improve engineering design.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it