MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589055026 · doi:10.1002/ghg.1670

Sensitivity of seismic response for monitoring storage in a low porosity reservoir of the St Lawrence Lowlands, Québec, Canada: Part 2 – Synthetic modeling

2017· article· en· W2589055026 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lorenzo Perozzi, Bernard Giroux, Douglas R. Schmitt, Erwan Gloaguen

Bibliographic record

VenueGreenhouse Gases Science and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersInstitut National de Recherche et de SécuritéCarbon Management CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsPorosityGeologyLead (geology)Permeability (electromagnetism)Software deploymentStructural basinSedimentary rockPetrologyPetroleum engineeringSeismologyGeochemistryGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deployment of carbon capture and storage on a large scale poses many challenges. One is the availability of reservoirs with suitable characteristics (high porosity and permeability, matched large emitters, etc.). Such a challenge might lead to the selection of reservoirs with relatively low porosity. In those environments, the rock matrix is often stiff and questions arise regarding the capabilities of seismic methods to monitor injection. An illustrative modeling of seismic reflectivities within a hypothetical geological formation with physical properties equal to that of the low‐porosity reservoir in the St. Lawrence Lowlands sedimentary basin, suggests that a liquid‐water contact is a potentially good seismic reflector despite a priori unfavorable conditions. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.228
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreenhouse Gases Science and TechnologySame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207