MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981568342 · doi:10.4095/299435

Geological and geochemical data from Mackenzie Corridor. Part V: New XRD data from Devonian cores and mineralogical characterization of mudrock units

2016· report· en· W2981568342 on OpenAlexaff
Pavel Kabanov, J B Percival, I Bilot, Chunqing Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianGeologyGeochemistryCharacterization (materials science)MineralogyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mineralogical surveys are an important part of shale reservoir studies. New results, based on X-ray diffraction analyses (XRD), are reported here for 101 core samples from three wells, mostly from organic-rich mudrocks of the Horn River Group (HRG) in Mackenzie Plain area. The combined NTGS-GSC XRD database has sufficient resolution for robust mineralogical characterization of stratigraphic units. The Canol Formation has the highest quartz (82% median) and the lowest clay content (7% median). Clays in the HRG are dominated by illite. The Hare Indian and lower Canol formations are variably calcareous and dolomitic; the upper Canol is dolomitic but non-calcareous; basal Imperial shales are sideritic-dolomitic and non-calcareous. More accurate characterization can be achieved by resolving issues between GSC and NTGS correlation of stratigraphic units. New XRD data are also used to characterize the Hume-HRG contact (a drowning unconformity) in Kugaluk N-02 well of northern Anderson Plain.

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 score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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