MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910138148 · doi:10.4095/247449

A comparison of core petrophysical data with well log parameters, Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin

2009· report· en· W2910138148 on OpenAlexaff
Kezhen Hu, D R Issler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsGeologyBeaufort scaleStructural basinCore (optical fiber)Beaufort seaOceanographyPaleontologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional core analysis (porosity, permeability, grain density, residual oil and water saturation) from 112 wells and specialized (e.g., porosity and permeability under variable pressure) core petrophysical analyses from 24 wells have been compiled from information contained in well history reports for the Beaufort-Mackenzie region. Well log data (density, sonic transit-time, resistivity, sonic and density caliper information) were obtained for the corresponding conventional core porosity measurements. The conventional analysis data are grouped in different combinations (depending on lithology, age, rock unit). Various histograms and cross plots are used to display the distributions of core analysis and relationships between core porosity and well log data. Some factors that cause significant data scatter on all plots are described.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→