MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039226604 · doi:10.1190/tle39070497.1

On the detectability of density change in steam-assisted gravity drainage reservoirs using muon tomography

2020· article· en· W3039226604 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Pieczonka, Doug Schouten, Oday Dabboor, Duncan Osler, Alexander Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsRick Hansen FoundationQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomographyDetectorGeologyMechanicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Muon tomography is applied to realistic density models of a steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) reservoir at 1.25 and 5 years after initial reservoir production. Forward models of muon count and opacity based on the density models are computed, as well as inverse models of the synthetic muon observations for various simulated detector arrays. The results demonstrate that both phases of reservoir development, namely the rising phase and the spreading phase, can be resolved by muon detectors placed 30 m below the bitumen reservoir at 230 m total vertical depth. The total mass change in the reservoir was recovered from the inversion model and differs from the true mass change by 20%–29%. The spatial distribution of density change shows very good agreement in the horizontal direction, while the vertical is less well constrained in this modeled sensor array configuration. The inverse models provide improved insights into reservoir depletion patterns and indicate muon tomography to be an applicable tool for continuous reservoir monitoring. The numerical modeling approach developed herein is able to model a wide range of SAGD reservoir geometries and detector arrays toward planning of optimized monitoring solutions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207