MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2872345779 · doi:10.5539/esr.v7n2p74

Analysis of Sandbody Development Model in Lishui Depression

2018· article· en· W2872345779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guowei Hou, Jinshui Liu, Kun Cai, Yonggang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Science Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringTrough (economics)Fault (geology)Development (topology)GeomorphologySeismologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To a certain extent, the development of sand body in lishui depression determines the success of oil and gas exploration, so the development models of sand body become the focus of current research. Based on seismic interpretation and exploration practice, five types of sand body development model were developed in lishui depression, including gentle slope-valley typed sand control model, steep slope-valley typed sand control model, trough fault controlling axial typed sand control model, gentle slope -contemporaneous fault typed sand control model and bulge steep slope-cross section typed sand control model.Different sand body development model determines the development characteristics of sand body and indicates the direction of exploration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Science ResearchSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207