MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910025052 · doi:10.4095/222398

Pore-size distribution characteristics of Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin shale samples, Northwest Territories

2006· report· en· W2910025052 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Connell-Madore, T J Katsube

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeaufort seaBeaufort scaleGeologyOil shaleStructural basinOceanographyPhysical geographyPaleontologyGeographyArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pore-size-distribution patterns for forty-one Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin shale samples have been examined for trends and similarities within four shale-compaction zones. These samples were collected over a depth range of 950 to 4860 m in nine wells. The main purpose of this study was to document trends related to depth and overpressure. This will form a database for pore-structure determination and seal-quality evaluation in future studies. Results indicate a distinct change in pore-size-distribution patterns at a depth of approximately 2 km in all four zones, with little to no change specifically related to normal versus overpressured areas. The main difference in the pore-size distributions at this depth (2 km) occurs in the intermediate and micro pore sizes. At a depth of 2 km, the relationship between other parameters (e.g. total porosity, density) and depth also changes.

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 score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207