MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2566163317

Exploration and Development of the Winnipeg/Deadwood Deep Gas Play along the Nesson Anticline

2013· article· en· W2566163317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy O. Nesheim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticlineOil shaleGeologyShale gasCorporationPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early 1990s, Amerada Hess Corporation began completing a series of deep gas wells in the Black Island (Winnipeg Group) and upper Deadwood Formations along the Nesson and Antelope Anticlines (fi g. 1). Primarily targeting sandstone intervals within the upper Black Island Formation (fi g. 2), 13 deep gas wells have been completed in the Winnipeg/Deadwood along the Nesson and Antelope Anticlines to date, 12 by Amerada Hess Corporation (now Hess Corporation). With individual well production totals ranging from just 2,073 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) to over 3.5 million BOE (~20 billion cubic feet, BCF dry gas), these 13 wells have cumulatively produced over 16 million BOE of dry gas (Nesheim, 2012). Peak production took place in April of 1997 when over 145,000 BOE (~0.8 BCF gas) were produced from the Winnipeg/Deadwood system (fi g. 3). With most of Amerada Hess’s deep gas wells completed in the middle 1990s, their success was partly overshadowed by the developing horizontal fractured Bakken upper shale play, the discovery and exploration of the prolifi c Lodgepole mounds, and the Red River Horizontal B discovery.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→