MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905252310 · doi:10.3968/10608

Comparison of Oil Well Productivity Evaluation Methods Based on Different Data

2018· article· en· W2905252310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qin Zhu, Dong Liu, Dayong Cheng, Xinran Wang, Xiaolin Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in petroleum exploration and development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityPetroleum engineeringScope (computer science)Variety (cybernetics)LoggingTest dataScale (ratio)EngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate prediction of well productivity is important to take proper engineering measures, and it has an important value on the increased cost of oil and gas exploration and development. Variety of different reservoir evaluation methods for well productivity based on different data, such as seismic data, mud logging data, well logging data, well testing data, formation test data etc. was compared in this paper, and the scale, scope and implications of the methods evaluation were also described. This provides a theoretical basis for comprehensive reservoir productivity assessment research, and can be a guidance for comprehensive evaluation of reservoir productivity based on variety of test data.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueAdvances in petroleum exploration and developmentSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207