MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315198369 · doi:10.1021/ef3009794

Liquid Intake of Organic Shales

2012· article· en· W2315198369 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsOil shaleGeologyHydraulic fracturingPorosityClay mineralsMineralogyShale oilPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organic shales are exposed to treatment fluids during and after hydraulic fracturing operations. The fluid–shale interaction influences the petrophysical alteration of the fractured shale and the fate of the fracturing fluid. We systematically measured the spontaneous water and oil intake of five shale samples collected from the cores of two wells drilled in the Horn River basin. The samples represent three shale formations with different mineralogy and petrophysical properties. We characterize the samples by measuring the porosity, conducting X-ray diffraction, and interpreting the well logging data and scanning electron microscopy images. The water intake is higher than the oil intake for all samples. The excess water intake and the physical alteration degree correlate with the shale mineralogy and petrophysical properties. The ratio between the water and oil intake is much higher than the ratio between the water and oil capillary pressures, even for the non-swelling shales. The comparative study indicates that the water intake of organic shales is controlled by both adsorption and capillarity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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