MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521068915 · doi:10.2172/1118013

Model verification: synthetic single pattern simulations using seismic reflection data

2010· report· en· W2521068915 on OpenAlexaff
Abelardo Ramirez, K Dyer, Donald J. White, Yue Hao, Xianjin Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliverableSeismic to simulationReservoir modelingSynthetic dataInversion (geology)GeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Seismic inversionExploitPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceSeismologyAlgorithmData assimilationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During Phase 1 of the Weyburn Project (2000-2004), 4D reflection seismic data were used to map CO2 migration within the Midale reservoir, while an extensive fluid sampling program documented the geochemical evolution triggered by CO2-brine-oilmineral interactions. The aim of this task (3b.11) is to exploit these existing seismic and geochemical data sets, augmented by CO2/H2O injection and HC/H2O production data toward optimizing the reservoir model and thereby improving site characterization and dependent predictions of long-term CO2 storage in the Weyburn-Midale reservoir. Our current project activities have concentrated on completing and testing a stochastic inversion method that will identify reservoir models that optimize agreement between the observed and predicted seismic response. This report describes the results of a validation test that uses synthetic seismic data to identify optimal porosity/permeability distributions within the reservoir. The report partially fulfills deliverable D3: “Model verification: synthetic single pattern simulations” in the project’s statement of work. A future deliverable will describe verification activities related to the geochemical inversion algorithm.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.140 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207