MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973600361 · doi:10.3390/en12183540

Kick Risk Forecasting and Evaluating During Drilling Based on Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average Model

2019· article· en· W2973600361 on OpenAlexaff
Hu Yin, Qian Li, Jinke Zhang, Liming Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsCasingAutoregressive modelTime seriesEngineeringPetroleum engineeringDrillingAutoregressive integrated moving averageMarine engineeringComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsMechanical engineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timely forecasting of the kick risk after a well kick can reduce the waiting time after well shut-in and provide more time for well killing operations. At present, the multiphase flow model is used to simulate and forecast the pit gain and casing pressure. Due to the complexity of downhole conditions, calculation of the multiphase flow model is difficult. In this paper, the time series analysis method is used to excavate the information contained in the time-varying data of pit gain and casing pressure. A forecasting model based on a time series analysis method of pit gain and casing pressure is established to forecast the pit gain and casing pressure after a kick. To divide the kick risk level and achieve the forecasting of the kick risk before and after well shut-in, kick risk analysis plates based on pit gain and casing pressure are established. Three pit gain cases and one casing pressure case are studied, and a comparison between measured data and predicted data shows that the proposed method has high prediction accuracy and repeatability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207