MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805401557 · doi:10.4095/293110

Organic petrology and vitrinite thermal maturation profiles for eight Yukon petroleum exploration wells in Eagle Plain and Liard basins

2013· report· en· W2805401557 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julito Reyes, S Saad, L S Lane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyEaglePetrologySource rockPetroleumPetroleum systemGeochemistryVitriniteGeomorphologyPaleontologyStructural basinSedimentary rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eight Yukon petroleum exploration wells were sampled for organic petrology and vitrinite reflectance thermal maturity. Seven wells are located in Eagle Plain, northern Yukon, and one is from Liard Plateau in southeastern Yukon. Where possible, the stratigraphic tops used in the interpretations reflect the currently available biostratigraphy. Kerogen type is dominated by marine to marginal marine, Type II and Type II/III; and pyrite is commonly found in association with the kerogen. Over much of Eagle Plain basin, Late Devonian to Albian strata are within the oil window. Higher reflectance values, into the dry gas zone at depth, are recorded toward the basin margins where older rocks are exposed. Absence of a maturity discontinuity at the sub-Mesozoic unconformity indicates that the thermal maximum post-dates Albian and predates early Tertiary exhumation. In the Beaver YT G-01 well in Liard Basin, the Late Devonian succession lies within the wet gas to dry gas windows whereas the Carboniferous section is within the oil generation window.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207