A new framework for selection of representative samples for special core analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Special core analysis (SCAL) measurements play a noteworthy role in reservoir engineering. Due to the time-consuming and costly character of these measurements, routine core analysis (RCAL) data should be inspected thoroughly to select a representative subset of samples for SCAL. There are no comprehensive guidelines on how representative samples should be selected. In this study, a new framework is presented for selection of representative samples for SCAL. The foundation of this framework is using methods of PSRTI, FZI∗ (FZI-star) and TEM-function for the early estimation of petrophysical static, dynamic, and pseudo-static rock types at RCAL stage. The global hydraulic element (GHE) approach is benefitted and a FZI∗-based GHE method (i.e., GHE∗) is presented for partitioning data. The framework takes into consideration different laboratory, reservoir engineering, geological, petrophysical and statistical factors. A carbonate reservoir case is presented to support our methodology. We also show that the current forms of Lorenz and Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plots in reservoir engineering are not appropriate, and present new forms of them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it