MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2308019918

Hydrocarbon Reservoir Evaluation in Triassic-Jurrasic Strata in the Western Sverdrup Basin, Canadian Arctic Islands

2012· article· en· W2308019918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhuoheng Chen, Ashton Embry, Yexin Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPetrophysicsSverdrupPaleontologyStructural basinEarly TriassicNatural gas fieldOil shaleSource rockGeochemistryNatural gasPermianPorosityGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The western Sverdrup basin is a petroliferous basin in the Canadian high Arctic, in which 17 oil and gas fields were discovered from 1969 to 1986 (Embry, 2011; Chen et al., 2000). Almost all discovered oil and gas fields of the basin (Fig.1) occur in Triassic-Jurassic strata and are sourced by primarily by oilprone, bituminous shale of Middle and Late Triassic age (Embry, 2011), and a deeper source rock has been suggested for the gas accumulations found in Drake and Hecla gas fields (Dewing and Obermajer, 2011). The main reservoirs consist primarily of shallow marine sandstones in the Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic Heiberg Group, Mid-Upper Jurassic Awingak Formation and the sandstones in the Schei Point Group of Mid-Upper Triassic succession, as well as the sandstones of the Bjorne Formation of Lower Triassic succession (Fig.2). In this study, the reservoir characteristics of TriassicJurassic sandstones are studied using core measurements (Hu & Dewing, 2010) and through petrophysical analyses of well logs. Cross sections are constructed by a combination of well logs, estimated petrophysical parameters, core analysis and well test results, illustrating the reservoir properties in tested hydrocarbon zones and identified potential intervals. Data analysis suggests that the Triassic-Jurassic strata contain large volumes of sandstone reservoirs that display a variety of porosity and permeability characteristics. This study will provide key petrophysical parameters for further hydrocarbon resources assessment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→