Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) published “Japan's Methane Hydrate R&D Program” in July, 2001. The Research Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan was established in March, 2002, to carry out the Program. Phase 1 of the Program finished successfully in March, 2009, and was changed over to second phase.In Eastern Nankai Trough area, methane hydrate in pore-filling type was found in 1999. Features of methane hydrat formations were emerged by the METI Exploratory test wells in 2004. Concentrated zones of methane hydrate were found in turbidite sand layers. A lot of core samples containing hydrate were recovered with pressure-temperature core sampler (PTCS). A method of extraction of the concentrated zones of methane hydrate from seismic data was obtained by analysis of wire-line, core, and seismic data.Estimation of in-place of methane gas in hydrate formation in Eastern Nankai Trough area was carried out using a volumetric method through probabilistic approach. The total in-place of methane gas in the area amounted to about 1 trillion m3 as a mean value.High-pressure - low-temperature laboratories were established to investigate properties of natural and synthetic core samples of methane hydrate formations and carry out production tests using these core samples under in-situ environmental conditions. A numerical simulator “MH21-HYDRES” was developed for predicting methane gas production from hydrate formations.Methane production tests at hydrate formations were carried out twice in the Mackenzie Delta in Canada with international collaboration. In the second test in March, 2008, gas was produced continuously for 6 days with depressurization method from a perforation interval of 12 m in the hydrate formation. A cumulative gas production of the test amounted to about 13,000 m3. The test was interrupted under an agreement of the test period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".