MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910978303 · doi:10.4095/299730

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) studies at the Aquistore CO2 storage site

2017· report· en· W2910978303 on OpenAlexaffabout
J A Craven, Don White

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Environmental scienceGeologyClimate changeOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been identified as a priority issue within the context of the North American climate change and energy collaboration. An important aspect of CCS is the need to improve public confidence in long-term geological storage of CO2. A key to developing confidence for the longer term is a demonstration of safe and expected storage behaviour in the short term. Two primary concerns of the public and government regulatory bodies are the potential for induced seismicity and for CO2 leakage. To alleviate these concerns, storage monitoring is critical in demonstrating that the subsurface CO2 plume is behaving as expected, and that induced microseismic or seismic activity is being closely monitored. The Aquistore CO2 Storage Project is a multi-year research and monitoring project to demonstrate that storing CO2 deep underground is a safe and workable solution to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The Geological Survey of Canada's studies within the project are focused on the development of improved monitoring methodologies and a better understanding of the relationship between CO2 injection and induced seismicity. A total of 60 ktonnes of CO2 were injected at the Aquistore site in the first year following initial injection in April-2015. Injection is occurring within a saline formation at a depth of 3150-3350m. In the first 4 months of 2016, CO2 was injected at an average rate of ~400 tonnes/day. Passive seismic monitoring at the site which began in 2012 has not identified any seismicity associated with the injection process. The first time-lapse 3D seismic surveys were completed in February of 2016 and will provide images of the CO2 plume in the subsurface.

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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207