Gas Hydrates — Geophysical Exploration Techniques and Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide supplies of conventional natural gas are declining; new, unconventional forms of energy resources are required to meet the increase in demand. Among these unconventional resources are gas hydrates, which are solid, icelike forms of methane and water that form under low-temperature and high-pressure regimes. Gas hydrates exist in abundance worldwide, and some estimates suggest that the total amount of natural gas found in gas hydrates may exceed all known conventional gas resources. In addition to their energy potential, scientific interest in gas hydrates has risen in recent years because of possible connections between climate forcing (natural and anthropogenic, in the past, present, and future) and methane trapped in gas-hydrate accumulations. Several large-scale national gas-hydrate programs exist in countries such as Japan, the United States, China, India, and Korea. The past several years have seen a tremendous number of deep-drilling expeditions and other geoscientific studies to understand the natural occurrences of gas hydrates. The completion and dissemination of results from these drilling expeditions has helped the geologic understanding of natural gas-hydrate occurrences evolve toward a gas-hydrate petroleum system. Although our understanding of gas hydrates in marine and permafrost environments has increased and new deposits have been found and described, only one demonstration project, at the Mallik well site (Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada), has been undertaken so far in which gas was produced from a gas-hydrate deposit using the pressure-drawdown technique. Although this production test in 2008 was a milestone in gas-hydrate exploration and exploitation, new or alternative methods of production are needed, and further production tests are required to prove longevity of a given gas-hydrate reservoir.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".