MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2749335532 · doi:10.1190/segam2017-17633799.1

Reliability of microseismic source mechanisms recorded in the Pembina field, Alberta

2017· article· en· W2749335532 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thomas S. Eyre, Mirko van der Baan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMicroseismic Industry Consortium
KeywordsMicroseismReliability (semiconductor)Field (mathematics)GeologyComputer scienceSeismologyPower (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Source mechanisms of microseismic events, obtained using moment tensor inversion (MTI), can provide valuable information for monitoring hydraulic fracturing treatments. MTI is carried out for a dataset of 470 microseismic events recorded on two vertical monitoring wells in the Pembina Field, Alberta, Canada. Synthetic tests are carried out to investigate the reliability of moment tensor (MT) solutions, especially with respect to the seismic source location relative to the two monitoring wells. The tests show that a narrow region of unreliable solutions, exhibiting high bias and variance, intersects the two monitoring wells. The real dataset shows two regions of MT solutions, one with predominantly shear mechanisms and one with predominantly tensile mechanisms. However, the region of tensile mechanisms correlates strongly with the unreliable region identified in the synthetic tests. Therefore these results are inferred to be unreliable and mechanisms within the reservoir are interpreted to be predominantly shear in nature. This study shows the importance of accounting for the reliability of MTI when interpreting solutions. Presentation Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Start Time: 4:20 PM Location: 362D Presentation Type: ORAL

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→