MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909819540 · doi:10.4095/221041

Modelling the response of the Cased Hole Formation Resistivity tool in order to determine the depth of gas hydrate dissociation during the thermal test in the JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production research well

2005· report· en· W2909819540 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara I. Anderson, I. Dubourg, T. S. Collett, R E Lewis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClathrate hydrateHydrateDissociation (chemistry)ThermalOrder (exchange)Materials scienceMineralogyThermodynamicsGeologyChemistryPhysicsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate research well was an integral part of a field experiment to test the physical response of a gas hydrate deposit to various advanced production methods. Iterative forward modelling of Cased Hole Formation Resistivity tool (CHFRTM) logs was used to determine the annular radius of gas hydrate dissociation that occurred around the wellbore during the thermal test in the Mallik 5L-38 well. Modelled results demonstrated that the radius of gas hydrate dissociation exhibited large local variations and was far from uniform. The comparison of the CHFR modelled results with the gas volumes measured at the surface indicate that most of the gas produced during the thermal test in the Mallik 5L-38 well was accurately measured at the surface. The CHFR modelling procedure shows promise for use in future single-well evaluation of gas hydrate dissociation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→