MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746368218 · doi:10.2118/185966-pa

A New Method for Production–Data Analysis and Well Testing by Use of Superposition Rate

2017· article· en· W2746368218 on OpenAlexaff
P.. Liang, Roberto Aguilera, Louis Mattar

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperposition principleTime–temperature superpositionProduction rateComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisEngineeringProcess engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This research presents a new method to analyze production- and well-test data: the superposition rate. The method was developed from the well-accepted superposition principle. It is presented in a generalized form and is applicable to data in transient flow (including radial, linear, and bilinear), as well as in boundary-dominated flow (BDF). The superposition-rate method is validated by synthetic data generated from reservoir modeling. Moreover, a practical work flow of implementing the superposition rate in production-data and well-test analysis is presented. Finally, real-field examples are used to demonstrate the practicality of superposition rate. A comparison between the superposition-rate and superposition-time methods is presented. The superposition rate shows advantages over the superposition time. A key improvement of the superposition rate in quality diagnostics and data analysis is that it does not modify time scale. Consequently, the superposition rate keeps all production data in the sequence of their occurrence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207