MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910251785 · doi:10.4095/215379

Pore-size distribution for graphitic shale samples from the Astarte River formation, Piling Group, Baffin Island, Nunavut

2004· report· en· W2910251785 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Connell-Madore, J Li, K Dexter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOil shaleGroup (periodic table)GeochemistryShale gasHydrology (agriculture)PaleontologyGeotechnical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pore-size distribution analysis was performed on four graphitic shale samples from the Astarte River formation, Baffin Island, Nunavut. This included measurement and interpretation of pore-size distribution data obtained by mercury injection porosimetry. The purpose was to document the results of the pore-size analysis and to provide pore-structure information on the graphitic shale. These would eventually be used for electrical mechanism analysis and geophysical survey interpretation. Effective porosity values determined by mercury porosimetry (öHg1 and öHg2) were in the ranges of 3.47 - 14.2%. The storage and connecting porosity values (ös and öc) were in the ranges of 2.72 - 12.8% and 1.03 - 2.29%, respectively. The sulphide-rich samples have the lowest porosity values (3.5 - 4.2%). The samples with higher porosities (sample numbers BAF-1 and BAF-2) have pore-size distribution patterns that resemble those of typical mudstone. The samples with lower porosity values (BAF-3 and BAF-AB) have more similarities to crystalline rocks.

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 score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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