MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594821021 · doi:10.1190/tle36030206.1

Introduction to this special section: Data analytics and machine learning

2017· article· en· W2594821021 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowAnalyticsData scienceComputer scienceSection (typography)Field (mathematics)Process (computing)Data analysisData miningDatabaseProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The explosion of data types and volumes we are experiencing in the oil field, particularly in unconventional reservoir development, is stretching the capabilities of traditional manual workflows. The complex interactions between dynamic reservoir properties and the many-faceted well completions process are governed by complex physics that may be only partially understood. Furthermore, our best attempts to perform controlled experiments can often produce highly varied results, suggesting the stochastic nature of production from unconventionals and that we may benefit from adding new tools to our toolkit of deterministic, physics-based analysis.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207