MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982094971 · doi:10.4095/296214

Rock-Eval/TOC results for cuttings samples from the Paktoa C-60 well, Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin, northern Canada

2015· report· en· W2982094971 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chunqing Jiang, M Obermajer, A Su

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeaufort scaleBeaufort seaStructural basinArchaeologyGeologyOceanographyGeographyCuttingForestryHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyPaleontologyArcticGeotechnical engineeringBiologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cuttings samples were collected from the Paktoa C-60 well of Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin for Rock-Eval/TOC analysis. As the samples have been hand-picked based on the lithology of the corresponding intervals and have been washed lightly with tap water, effect of drilling mud contamination on the Rock- Eval results, especially on Tmax and S2 values is considered minimal as evident from the shape of S2 peaks on hydrocarbon FID pyrograms. Thermal maturity represented by Tmax indicates that the Tertiary Taglu sequence intersected at the Paktoa C-60 well is immature with respect to oil generation, even at the total depth of around 2400 m. A high content of volatile and semi-volatile hydrocarbons as reflected by production index (PI) is determined in the 1293-1311.5 m interval where significant oil discovery was made from drill stem test (DST#4).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and Exploration→French-language works237,207→