MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462920581 · doi:10.4172/2381-8719.1000204

The Influence of Grain Morphology on Reservoir Quality of Some Athabasca Oil Sands Samples

2015· article· en· W2462920581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aminu MD, Kulkarni KS

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geology & Geophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOil sandsMorphology (biology)Mining engineeringGeochemistryPetroleum engineeringArchaeologyPaleontologyGeographyAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on the determination of detailed grain morphology using SEM technology on some Athabasca oil sands samples obtained from the Upper McMurray Formation in the Manville Group which occurs in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. The research was carried out using scientific techniques to understand grain morphology—being a major effect in discerning reservoir quality—a factor which is essential for in-situ bitumen recovery. After studying various grain size and shape parameters, results showed that Sample B is poorly sorted medium sand of relatively low porosity but high permeability. Sample C on the other hand is moderately sorted fine sand of relatively high porosity but low permeability. It was also found out that although both oil sand samples contain heavy oil which is essentially recoverable in-situ; Sample B proved to be more promising due to its higher permeability values. At the end of the study, it was recommended that further research be carried out on the oil sands samples by use of core analysis techniques; computer-based simulation for heavy oil recovery; and a general study of structural effects on oil sands such as weathering and fracturing, all of which are important in better-quality in-situ bitumen recovery.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geology & GeophysicsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207