Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent experiments show the strong water uptake of gas shales which are strongly oil-wet based on contact angle measurements.1,2 Clay hydration, microfracture induction, lamination, and osmotic effect are collectively responsible for the excess water uptake. However, the previous measurements are not sufficient to isolate the above factors nor to explain why the bulk of shale samples can hardly imbibe the oil which completely spreads on their surface. To answer the remaining questions, we measure and compare spontaneous imbibition of oil and water into the crushed packs of the similar shales. In contrast to the intact samples, the crushed samples consistently imbibe more oil than water. The comparative study suggests that the connected pore network of the intact samples is water wet while the majority of rock including poorly connected pores is oil-wet. This argument is backed by complete spreading of oil on fresh surfaces of the rock. In contrast to the artificial pores of crushed rock, the existing pores of intact rock are already wetted by a film of water and/or covered by precipitated salt, which gives the pores a preference for water over oil. Furthermore, the presence of salt in the pore space provides an additional force for water uptake through an osmotic effect. This argument is backed by the observed reduction in shale alteration and water imbibition through increasing the salt concentration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".