MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910470332 · doi:10.4095/221040

Overview of thermal-stimulation production-test results for the JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production research well

2005· report· en· W2910470332 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Hancock, T. S. Collett, S R Dallimore, T Satoh, Takahiro Inoue, Ernst Huenges, Jan Henninges, Brian Weatherill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrateClathrate hydrateProduction (economics)Test (biology)StimulationEnvironmental scienceGeologyPsychologyChemistryEconomicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal-stimulation test conducted on the JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production research well in March of 2002 was designed to increase the in situ temperature of a portion of a well defined and constrained gas hydrate reservoir above the gas hydrate stability point,while maintaining constant pressure. Data collected, including surface and downhole instrumentation readings and data from advanced logging and seismic programs, were then used to calibrate numerical gas hydrate reservoir simulation models and determine the kinetic and thermodynamic properties of the in situ gas hydrate. The thermal-stimulation test was successful: bottomhole temperature was increased to greater than 50°C during the test; gas from dissociated gas hydrate was produced, sampled, and flared at surface; and significant amounts of real-time downhole temperature and pressure data, as well as other scientific measurements, were obtained.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations73
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207