MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2944798410 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201900481

Сharacteristics of the Bazhenov Horizon from Peripheral Area Based on Geochemical Study of the Organic Matter

2019· article· en· W2944798410 on OpenAlexaff
E. V. Kozlova, Mikhail Spasennykh, Timur Bulatov, Е. Leushina, N. Bogdanovich, Andrey Voropaev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKerogenOrganic matterGeologyHorizonGeochemistrySulfurPyrolysisStructural basinPetroleum geochemistryIsotopeSource rockChemistryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This research is devoted to the study of organic matter (OM) from Bazhenov and Abalak sections of the well located in peripheral part of West Siberia. For the comprehensive characterization, we performed Rock-Eval pyrolysis of rocks, GC-MS analyses of bitumen and isotope ratio measurements for gases, bitumen and cores. The Abalak section cores contain less OM of poorer quality (type III or II-III kerogen). According to the obtained results, the Bazhenov section could be divided into lower and middle parts. A lower part of the Bazhenov section consists of altering layers with 0.5–1.6 m thickness differing in OM quality and quantity. Cores from layers enriched with OM are similar to the cores from the central region of West Siberian petroleum basin (the Bazhenov Formation). Layers with the lack of OM are presented in the Bazhenov Formation of investigated section. Such layers are potential reservoirs with relatively high production indexes. Most probably, the differences in quality of OM are caused by sedimentation conditions, that was confirmed by sulfur isotope ratio studies.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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