MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3021440534 · doi:10.4095/325459

Analysis of microfractures in Lower Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic sandstones of the Scotian Basin, offshore Nova Scotia

2020· report· en· W3021440534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Georgia Pe‐Piper, Christopher Sangster, David J. W. Piper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaCretaceousGeologyPaleontologyStructural basinSubmarine pipelineNova (rocket)MesozoicOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microfractures have been investigated in potential reservoir sandstones in four wells from the eastern Scotian Basin. Samples were selected from within the overpressured zone in Venture B-52, just above overpressure in Venture 1, in an intensely silica-cemented interval in South Griffin J-13 and from a deeply buried sandstone lacking overpressure in a dry well, Peskowesk A-99. Backscattered electron (BSE) and cathodoluminescent (CL) images were acquired from polished thin sections. Microfractures (<100 micrometres wide) were classified as intragranular, intergranular, transgranular, intra-cement and hydro-fractures. The size and orientation of different microfractures were measured and their relationship to diagenetic paragenesis was assessed. Most microfractures are either bedding-parallel or at 45° to bedding. Generation 1 fractures probably result from eodiagenetic compaction; Generation 2 fractures are synchronous with mesodiagenesis; and Generation 3 fractures are open. This Open File presents the SEM data, measurements of size and orientation by fracture type, and a preliminary interpretation of the fracture data.

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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→