MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2387018670

Arctic oil and natural gas potential and exploration and development trend

2014· article· en· W2387018670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhao Zh

Bibliographic record

VenueDixue qianyuan · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticGeologyStructural basinNatural gasFossil fuelOceanographyCretaceousCanada BasinEarth scienceGeochemistryPaleontologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic is featured not only by vast area,poor natural conditions and territorial disputes,but also by its rich oil and gas resources.Petroliferous basins in Arctic are mainly passive continental margin basins.Jurassic source rocks are the most widely developed among others,while the Jurassic sandstone reservoirs are also widely developed as high quality reservoir in the area.The Cretaceous shale is the regional cap rock.According to the evaluation based on play cored assessment,11basins are assessed in Arctic,and the resources of the rest 13basins refer to the USGS assessments.According to the assessment results,the undiscovered oil resources are 14.9 billion tons,including 4.0 billion tons gas condensate,and the undiscovered gas resources are 46trillion cubic metres.The Yenisey-Khatanga basin holds the largest undiscovered oil and gas resources,then East Barents Sea basin,South Kara-Yamal Sub-basin,Mackenzie Delta and East Greenland basin.In Arctic,the undiscovered oil resources are mainly distributed in Russia and USA,and the undiscovered gas resources are mainly distributed in Russia.In recent years,the East Barents Platform is the most active area in the Arctic oil and gas exploration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDixue qianyuanSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207