MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982010783 · doi:10.4095/298803

An organic geochemical investigation of the Carboniferous Mabou Group intersected by groundwater wells in McCully Gas Field, southern New Brunswick - its hydrocarbon source potential and character

2016· report· en· W2982010783 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chunqing Jiang, Denis Lavoie, Christine Rivard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboniferousGroup (periodic table)GeologyCharacter (mathematics)GeochemistryGroundwaterHydrocarbonSource rockGeomorphologyChemistryGeotechnical engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water wells were drilled in November 2015 over the McCully gas field in southern New Brunswick as part of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) Environmental Geoscience program. Drill cuttings were collected and immediately put in Isojars at the well sites. Cuttings samples from PO-01 to PO-06 wells have been submitted to the Organic Geochemistry and Petrology Laboratories at the GSC-Calgary for Rock-Eval and hydrocarbon compositional analyses to evaluate their hydrocarbon potential, hydrocarbon property and source rock characteristics. Cuttings from one well (PO-06) have generated results indicative of presence of organic matter and hydrocarbons in the rock although no dissolved hydrocarbons were detected in groundwater at the well site. New Rock-Eval analyses were carried out on the cuttings as well as organic extracts and detailed geochemistry to further address the issue of either in situ hydrocarbon production or external hydrocarbon charge into the sediments.

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 score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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