MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592605825

Micro-CT Characterization of Pore-size Distribution and Effects on Matrix Acidizing

2016· article· en· W2592605825 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Alexander Dubetz

Bibliographic record

VenueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlzheimer Society Research Program
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Matrix (chemical analysis)MineralogyMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialNanotechnology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbonate rocks have complex heterogeneities that result from syn- and post-depositional stressors. These heterogeneities invariably affect the movement of fluid through the formation. When considering an acid treatment procedure, care must be taken to optimize the acid concentration and pumping schedule to encourage the formation of wormholes. Despite the abundance of carbonate formations (60% of conventional reserves), there is little consensus on the effect of physical formation properties related to acidizing efficiency. This study characterizes the pore-size distribution for different carbonate rocks and evaluates how the optimum pore-volume to breakthrough, PV bt, opt, and the optimal interstitial flux, vi, opt, are related to various physical properties of the rock. \n\nThe pore-size distributions evaluated in this study are constructed with micro-computer tomography (micro-CT) imaging, a non-invasive X-Ray imaging technique pioneered in the medical field. Micro-CT is improved over medical CT because it can scan at higher energies and higher resolution. In this work, resolution for scanned samples are from 5-8 µm/voxel and sample sizes are approximately 1cm^3. From the raw data, image processing is applied to distinguish pore space from the surrounding matrix. Object counter software is used to identify and measure individual pores, which can then be organized into a pore-size distribution. This study finds that the shape of the pore-size distribution is influenced by the type of carbonate rock, where the primary difference between scanned samples is their pore structure. Statistical parameters are calculated by fitting a lognormal distribution function to each sample’s pore-size distribution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.145
Teacher spread0.142 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207