MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596937899 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201600782

Accelerating Large-scale Reservoir Simulations Using Supercomputers

2016· article· en· W2596937899 on OpenAlexaff
H. Liu, Kai Wang, Jia Luo, Zhangxin Chen, Boming Yang, Ruisi He

Bibliographic record

Venue78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupercomputerComputer scienceWorkstationComputational scienceSolverParallel computingReservoir simulationDiscretizationScale (ratio)Nonlinear systemReservoir computingPetroleum engineeringGeologyOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Nowadays, simulations of advanced recovery processes applied by the petroleum industry have been becoming more and more complicated. In the meantime, finer geological models for these processes are being utilized. Their numerical simulations can take days or even longer to complete one run using regular workstations. Fast computational methods and computer techniques should be investigated. We are dedicated to developing new reservoir models and fast reservoir simulation techniques, including new discretization methods, efficient nonlinear methods, linear solver and peconditioner methods, and parallel computing techniques. Numerical results show our reservoir simulations are accelerated thousands of times faster by using a supercomputer and parallel computing is a powerful tool. Supercomputers also have huge memory and extremely large reservoir models can be computed.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207