More Microseismic Events are Not Always Better
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We examine a case study in a North American shale play where a number of wells were stimulated. Because the completions were monitored with two whip arrays, we were able to perform seismic moment tensor inversion on many of the detected events. For the first well, we say many sub-vertical failures following two dominant orientations while the second well showed a predominance of sub-horizontal fractures, with a lower overall event count. The initial predictions indicated that the first well would have better production due to the larger volumes of more complicated stimulated volumes. However, when the production data was acquired, it was the second well that had the higher production. We resolved this paradox through examining the apparent stress of the events: the first well had higher apparent stresses more characteristic of fault activation; the second well had lower apparent stress values more characteristic of fluid induced events. Our interpretation is that the fluids allowed for bedding planes to slip and stimulate a larger volume whereas the first well did not succeed in transferring fluids to the seismically active volumes.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".