MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900695461 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201803024

Analysis Of Gas Production Data Via An Intelligent Model: Application Natural Gas Production

2018· article· en· W2900695461 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, Zhangxin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationArtificial neural networkNatural gasProduction (economics)ExtrapolationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceEconometricsStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsAlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Estimation of natural gas reserves and forecasting future gas production throughout gas reservoirs is a critical issue for upstream experts. One of the practical approaches for defeating the aforementioned obstacle is decline curve analysis (DCA) which is a mathematical based approach to coordinate actual gas production rates of group of wells, individual wells, or reservoirs with proper function in order to forecast the efficiency of the production in future with the aim of extrapolation of the fitted decline function. Accordingly, applying robust predictive models in this area is of great interest in a gas production system. The current study demonstrates the framework for applying the predictive approach based on coupling artificial neural network and swarm optimization to estimate initial decline rate and cumulative gas production. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) was employed to choose and optimize weights and biases of a neural network which are embedded in PSO-ANN model. Utilization of this model showed high competence of the applied model in terms of coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.9865 and 0.9955, mean squared error (MSE) of 0.00013 and 2.4618 from experimental values for forecasted cumulative gas production and initial decline rate, correspondingly. Executing the suggested model is quite precise and user-friendly to determine the initial decline rate and cumulative gas production with negligible uncertainty. Petroleum experts can easily evolve their own software or program to determine gas reserves and production efficiency in reservoirs.

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)0.001
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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 venueProceedingsSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207