MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003770415 · doi:10.1155/2020/5387183

Generation of Synthetic Density Log Data Using Deep Learning Algorithm at the Golden Field in Alberta, Canada

2020· article· en· W3003770415 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeofluids · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and PlanningNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyKorea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral ResourcesNational Research Foundation
KeywordsField (mathematics)Artificial neural networkWell loggingGeologyAlgorithmDeep learningComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Data miningPreprocessorArtificial intelligenceGeophysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a deep neural network- (DNN-) based prediction model for creating synthetic log. Unlike previous studies, it focuses on building a reliable prediction model based on two criteria: fit-for-purpose of a target field (the Golden field in Alberta) and compliance with domain knowledge. First, in the target field, the density log has advantages over the sonic log for porosity analysis because of the carbonate depositional environment. Considering the correlation between the density and sonic logs, we determine the sonic log as input and the density log as output for the DNN. Although only five wells have a pair of training data in the field (i.e., sonic and density logs), we obtain, based on geological knowledge, 29 additional wells sharing the same depositional setting in the Slave Point Formation. After securing the data, 5 wells among the 29 wells are excluded from dataset during preprocessing procedures (elimination of abnormal data and min–max normalisation) to improve the prediction model. Two cases are designed according to usage of the well information at the target field. Case 1 uses only 23 of the surrounding wells to train the prediction model, and another surrounding well is used for model testing. In Case 1, the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm shows a fast and reliable performance and the numbers of neurons in the two hidden layers are of 45 and 14, respectively. In Case 2, the 24 surrounding wells and four wells from the target field are used to train the DNN with the optimised parameters from Case 1. The synthetic density logs from Case 2 mitigate an underestimation problem in Case 1 and follow the overall trend of the true density logs. The developed prediction model utilises the sonic log for generating the synthetic density log, and a reliable porosity model will be created by combining the given and the synthetic density logs.

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.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.194 · 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