MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333198056 · doi:10.3720/japt.74.270

Resource assessment and onshore production tests of methane hydrate

2009· article· en· W2333198056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Koji Yamamoto, Tatsuo Saeki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneHydrateClathrate hydrateCabin pressurizationEnvironmental sciencePermafrostPetroleum engineeringGeologyChemistryMaterials scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane hydrate, often called “fiery ice”, has been examined as a possible future energy source. MH21 (the Research Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan) has advanced methane hydrate exploitation study covering the resource assessment around the Japan arc and the development of methane hydrate production technology since 2002. The existence of more than 10 methane hydrate concentrated zones were delineated in the Eastern Nankai Trough area and it was calculated that methane hydrate resources (in-place) in those methane hydrate concentrated zones corresponded to 20 tcf of methane gas. To verify the production techniques, twice onshore production tests have been conducted in the Canadian Arctic under international collaborations. Following the first production test in 2002 in which the thermal stimulation technique lead to the world's first gas production from methane hydrate-bearing sediment, the second test was performed to realize the depressurization for in-situ methane hydrate dissociation in 2007 and 2008. The discovery of the methane hydrate concentrated zones and the applicability of the energy efficient depressurization technique are important milestones to bring methane hydrate from an exotic material to real resource.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum TechnologySame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207