MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206363546 · doi:10.1190/geo2014-0374.1

Bayesian inversion of pressure diffusivity from microseismicity

2015· article· en· W2206363546 on OpenAlexaff
Oleg V. Poliannikov, Michael Prange, Hugues Djikpéssé, Alison Malcolm, Michael Fehler

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMicroseismGeologyHydraulic fracturingInversion (geology)Probabilistic logicFluid dynamicsFluid pressureUncertainty quantificationSeismologyPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceMechanicsMachine learningTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have considered the problem of using microseismic data to characterize the flow of injected fluid during hydraulic fracturing. We have developed a simple probabilistic physical model that directly ties the fluid pressure in the subsurface during the injection to observations of induced microseismicity. This tractable model includes key physical parameters that affect fluid pressure, rock failure, and seismic wave propagation. It is also amenable to a rigorous uncertainty quantification analysis of the forward model and the inversion. We have used this probabilistic rock failure model to invert for fluid pressure during injection from synthetically generated microseismicity and to quantify the uncertainty of this inversion. The results of our analysis can be used to assess the effectiveness of microseismic monitoring in a given experiment and even to suggest ways to improve the quality and value of monitoring.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207