MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040174305 · doi:10.1785/0120200002

Activation Rate of Seismicity for Hydraulic Fracture Wells in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2020· article· en· W3040174305 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hadi Ghofrani, Gail M. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInduced seismicityStructural basinSeismologySedimentary rockMagnitude (astronomy)Hydraulic fracturingMonte Carlo methodFracture (geology)Maximum magnitudeGeomorphologyGeochemistryGeotechnical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The rate of M≥3 earthquakes associated with hydraulic fracturing (HF) in horizontal wells (HF wells) in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin is estimated for the period from 2009 to 2019. The estimates are based on a statistical discrimination algorithm that uses an objective scoring function deduced from the observed spatiotemporal correlations between wells and earthquakes. A Monte Carlo simulation approach is used to test the efficacy of the scoring function in determining noncoincidental association rates, allowing for correction of the observed association rates for the expected number of false positives. The basin-wide average rate of association of M≥3 earthquakes with HF wells (2009–2019) is ∼0.8% on a per well basis. The susceptibility appears to vary by formation by more than an order of magnitude, ranging from ∼6% for HF wells in the Duvernay Formation to ∼0.07% for HF wells in the Cardium Formation. For some formations, there has been no observed association at the M≥3 level to date, but this does not necessarily imply that such formations are immune to induced seismicity.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207