Natural Fractures and Mechanical Properties in a Horn River Shale Core From Well Logs and Hardness Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper documents the formation of natural fractures in the Horn River Group, a major Canadian shale gas play, and addresses relationships between natural-fracture development and rock-mechanical properties derived from cores and well logs. Most natural fractures in the Horn River Shale are narrow vertical fractures, sealed with carbonate minerals. In this study, the formation of observed fractures is primarily determined by a lithology type, mineral composition, and rock-mechanical properties at the timing of fracturing. Brittleness is an important geomechanical property controlling the formation of fractures, because brittle shale is more easily fractured than ductile shale, and fractures in brittle shale tend to persist when the fracturing pressure is released. In this study, a hardness value measured by a commercial hardness tester is found to be a good proxy for the brittleness of shale layers. On the basis of a statistical analysis, the threshold values of both hardness and brittleness are estimated to predict the distribution of natural fractures, assuming that the mechanical properties of the host rock were relatively stable from at least the time at which fractures formed. Hardness values are shown to be more reliable than brittleness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".