MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789448957 · doi:10.14770/jgsk.2018.54.1.61

Methods for thermal maturity estimation in shale gas source/reservoir rocks: A case study of a Devonian shale in Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin

2018· article· en· W2789448957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sung Kyung Hong, Jiyoung Choi, Hyun Suk Lee, Young Jae Shinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the geological society of Korea · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Trade, Industry and Energy
KeywordsGeologyOil shaleTotal organic carbonFrench hornMaturity (psychological)Source rockDevonianSedimentary rockGeochemistryDrainage basinStructural basinDrillingHydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologyPaleontologyGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

셰일층의 열적 성숙도는 다양한 기법으로 평가 가능하나 셰일층에 잔류하는 유기물 특성에 따라 평가 정확도가 달라지기 때문에 열적 성숙도 평가 시 주의가 요구된다. Horn River 분지의 과성숙한 데본기 셰일층은 케로젠의 함량이 매우 낮고 비트리나이트가 부재하여 일반적으로 사용되는 비트리나이트 반사도와 Rock-Eval 열분석 기법을 통해 열적 성숙도를 평가하기 어렵다. 셰일층에 다량 포함된 고형 비투멘(solid bitumen)의 반사도는 열적 성숙도 평가의 대안으로 사용되어 왔으나 열적 성숙도 이외의 요인에 의해 영향을 받는 단점이 있다. Horn River 분지의 고형 비투멘 반사도에서 변환한 비트리나이트 반사도는 유기화합물 지시자(MPI-1)로부터 변환된 비트리나이트 반사도와 유사하다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 고형 비투멘 반사도를 Horn River 분지 데본기셰일층의 열적 성숙도 평가 지시자로 활용하였다. Horn River 분지 데본기 셰일층의 변환된 비트리나이트 반사도는 평균 1.9%로 가스 생성단계에 도달하였음을 지시한다. 총유기탄소(total organic carbon, TOC)의 함량은 1.5-6.8(평균: 3.8) wt%로 높은 값을 보이며 TOC에 포함된 잔류 유기탄소(residual carbon, RC)의 비율이 90% 이상이다. 이는 대부분의 열분해 유기탄소(pyrolysable carbon, PC)가 탄화수소로 변환되었고 유기공극이 발달하였음을 지시한다. 따라서 Horn River 분지의 데본기 셰일층은 가스 생성 및 저장 잠재성이 높은 셰일가스 근원암/저류암으로 판단된다.

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 score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the geological society of KoreaSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207