MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039947826 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105988

Dataset for estimating occurrence probability of causations for plugged, abandoned and decommissioned oil and gas wells

2020· article· en· W3039947826 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed O. Babaleye, Rafet Emek Kurt, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausationComputer scienceRaw dataMean time between failuresDuration (music)Petroleum engineeringStatisticsEnvironmental scienceFailure mode and effects analysisFailure rateData miningReliability engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article contains the dataset on the failure frequencies of the barrier and mechanical plugs in place within the hydrocarbon-containing wellbore during plugging and abandonment operation. The interpretation and application of this data can be found in the research article ("https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.09.015" Babaleye et al., 2019). These datasets were collected through a comprehensive hazard identification technique workshop involving 10 engineers and academics with considerable years of field experience. The data were collected based on how likely it is for each causation to occur and these likelihoods are ranked from 1 to 10. The process is experience-driven and is complemented by a 1-10 rating of the duration of leak of hydrocarbon before remediation, should the leak reach the mudline. The ranked data was a representative of raw failure data (failure rate or mean time to failure (MTTF)) for each causation and are coded in MATLAB using gamma distribution based on hierarchical Bayesian analysis. The dataset offers unique opportunity for reuse due to its accessibility and discreteness.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207