On Permeability Prediction From Complex Conductivity Measurements Using Polarization Magnitude and Relaxation Time
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geophysical length scales determined from complex conductivity (CC) measurements can be used to estimate permeability when the electrical formation factor F is known. Two geophysical length scales have been proposed: (1) the specific polarizability normalized by the imaginary conductivity and (2) the time constant multiplied by a diffusion coefficient . The parameters and account for the control of fluid chemistry and/or varying minerology on the geophysical length scale. We evaluated the predictive capability of two CC permeability models: (1) an empirical formulation based on or normalized chargeability and (2) a mechanistic formulation based on . The performance of the CC models was evaluated against measured ; and further compared against that of well‐established estimation equations that use geometric length scales. Both CC models predict permeability within one order of magnitude for a database of 58 sandstone samples, with the exception of samples characterized by high pore volume normalized surface area . Variations in and likely contribute to the poor model performance for the high samples, which contain significant dolomite. Two observations favor the implementation of the ‐based model over the ‐based model for field‐scale estimation: (1) a limited range of variation in relative to and (2) field measurements are less time consuming to acquire relative to . The need for a reliable field‐estimate of limits application of either model, in particular the model due to a high power law exponent associated with .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it