MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2502142935 · doi:10.1190/1.9781560802235.ch26

26. Using Multitransient Electromagnetic Surveys to Characterize Oil Sands and Monitor Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage

2010· book-chapter· en· W2502142935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Folke Engelmark

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety of Exploration Geophysicists eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageOil sandsPetroleum engineeringAsphaltOil productionDrainageEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyMining engineeringWaste managementArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Heavy oil and bitumen constitute the largest easily accessible remaining hydrocarbon deposits in the world, with the greatest potential resources found in Canada, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union. There are many ways to produce these assets, starting with surface mining of the shallow oil sands to various in situ recovery methods. Heavy oil can sometimes be produced cold, whereas bitumen requires heating or injection of solvents to be mobilized. Cold production of heavy oil may or may not be successfully monitored by electromagnetic surveys (EM), depending on the recovery technique. Slow drainage by pumping the oil is no different from other oil production in terms of EM and should hence be successful, but for the process known as cold heavy-oil production with sand (CHOPS), it is unclear whether this can be successfully monitored by EM because the recovery rate is only 10% and most of the oil and sand is produced from so-called “wormholes,” which affect only restricted parts of the 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.010

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety of Exploration Geophysicists eBooksSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207