The rock physics model in the unconsolidated methane hydrate bearing sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that the methane hydrate exists below the sea floor over 500 m or the polar region under the frozen ground in the Earth. We made the cross-plot of the methane hydrate and Vp, Vs, or Vp/Vs from the well log data at the eastern Nankai Trough in Japan and the Mackenzie Delta in Canada. We found that as the methane hydrate saturation increases, Vp and Vs increase, and Vp/Vs decreases from these plots. We discussed the rock physics model of methane hydrate bearing layers. We calculated Vp, Vs, and Vp/Vs as the function of the methane hydrate saturation, based on four imaginary rock physics model of methane hydrate bearing layers. From the comparison between the real well sonic data and the calculated data from four models, we inferred that the rock physics model of methane hydrate bearing layers was matrix-supporting model at both the eastern Nankai Trough and the Mackenzie Delta areas. However, there were some error and difference with the Vp, Vs and Vp/Vs from the matrix-supporting model and real well sonic data between the eastern Nankai Trough and the Mackenzie Delta. We estimated the effect of Vp, Vs, and Vp/Vs for the change of clay content of matrix-supporting model. As the clay content decreases, the Vp and Vs increase, and Vp/Vs decreases. The clay content from well core data corresponds with the calculated Vp, Vs, and Vp/Vs as the function of the methane hydrate saturation and the clay content from the matrix supporting model. In case of the estimation of methane hydrate saturation from Vp, Vs, and Vp/Vs, we need to consider the geology, especially sand/clay ratio of the methane hydrate bearing layers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".