MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536098084 · doi:10.2118/184388-pa

The Projection-Pursuit Multivariate Transform for Improved Continuous Variable Modeling

2016· article· en· W2536098084 on OpenAlexaff
R. M. Barnett, John G. Manchuk, Clayton V. Deutsch

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateMultivariate statisticsProjection pursuitMultivariate analysisComputer scienceProjection (relational algebra)Reservoir simulationFlow (mathematics)StatisticsEconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePetroleum engineeringGeologyMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Reservoir process-performance evaluation requires the simulation of multiple continuous variables such as porosity, water saturation, and permeability. Geostatistical realizations should reproduce the univariate and multivariate statistics that are deemed representative of the reservoir. A conventional work flow that sequentially applies cosimulation and cloud transformations is frequently used for this multivariate simulation. Although it effectively reproduces univariate properties, a common issue with this work flow is its inability to reproduce all the multivariate relationships that exist between variables. To resolve this issue, the projection-pursuit multivariate transform (PPMT) is applied to reservoir modeling. The PPMT work flow requires fewer steps, no manual tuning, and fewer assumptions than the conventional work flow. Background, essential steps, and practical considerations of the conventional and PPMT work flows are outlined before comparing them in a case study. The PPMT is shown to yield multivariate reproduction that is expected to improve reservoir forecasting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207