Shale Gas Evaluation of the Early Jurassic Posidonia Shale Formation and the Carboniferous Epen Formation in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the discovery of the Groningen gas field, the Netherlands has been a large producer and consumer of natural gas. Current forecasts show that production from convention on- and offshore fields will decline noticibly in the next decades. The Netherlands has the ambition to sustain its prominent role in the northwestern European gas market and will have to be able to meet the future domestic demand. Import of natural gas, either through liquid natural gas import (North Africa, Middle East) or from the East (Nordstream), are therefore evaluated and planned. Following the developments in the United States, the question has arisen if there is shale gas potential in the Netherlands that could add to the domestic gas production. A first evaluation in 2009 confirmed this potential, although the uncertainties are huge. Others have, however, challenged this positive view on the potential resource of the Netherlands. The follow-up work presented in this paper provides more detailed information based on extensive data evaluations and interpretations of potential shale gas targets in the Netherlands.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".