MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323307151 · doi:10.2113/gscpgbull.63.4.277

A review of three geostatistical techniques for realistic geological reservoir modeling integrating multi-scale data

2015· review· en· W2323307151 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brigitte Doligez, M. Le Ravalec, Sarah Bouquet, M. Adelinet, David Garner

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyScale (ratio)GeostatisticsGeomorphologyPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringCartographyStatisticsSpatial variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper discusses new methodologies and workflows developed to generate geological models (1) that look more realistic geologically speaking and (2) that respect the well and seismic data characterizing the studied area. Accounting simultaneously for these two constraints is challenging as they behave the opposite way. The more realistic the geological model, the more difficult the integration of data. A first powerful approach is based upon the non-stationary plurigaussian simulation method. In this case, the available geological and seismic data make it possible to compute the 3D probability distributions of facies proportions, which are then used to truncate the Gaussian functions. A second method is rooted in the Bayesian sequential simulation. Recent developments have been proposed to extend this method to media including distinct facies. We suggest an improved variant to better account for the resolution differences between sonic logs and seismic data. This yields a more robust framework to integrate seismic data. A third innovative approach reconciles geostatistical multipoint simulation with texture synthesis principles. Geostatistical multipoint methods provide models, which better reproduce complex geological features. However, they still call for significant computation times. On the other hand, texture synthesis has been developed for computer graphics: it can help reduce computation time, but it does not account for data. We then envision a hybrid multi-scale algorithm with improved computation performances and yet able to respect data

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207