MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085340829 · doi:10.5539/esr.v10n1p1

Well Log Petrophysical Analysis and Fluid Characterization of Reservoirs, Rio Del Rey Basin, Cameroon (West African Margin, Gulf of Guinea)

2020· article· en· W3085340829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Bertrand Iboum Kissaaka, Ahmed Salim Mopa Moulaye, Paul Gustave Fowé Kwetche, François Mvondo Owono, Marie Joseph Ntamak-Nida

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Science Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsHydrocarbonGeologySubmarine pipelineStructural basinGas chromatographyNatural gasFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringPetroleum reservoirWet gasGeochemistryPorosityMineralogyChromatographyGeomorphologyChemistryGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quick-look and gas chromatography analyses were used for formation evaluation of four depth intervals in a well (well A) located within the offshore of the Rio Del Rey basin. The results show 3 water reservoirs (R1 to R3) and 1 hydrocarbon reservoir (R4). The quick-look reveals that the hydrocarbon (oil and gas) reservoir is a shaley sandstone or a radioactive sandstone located between 4898-4932 Mmd which is filled by oil and gas and with a good porosity. The chromatographic gas ratio analysis reveals that the hydrocarbon reservoir is filled by a productive gas which may be a wet gas. The result provided by the gas chromatography is a false result probably due to its limitation which is that the hydrocarbon component must exist at the gaseous phase (C1-C5) to be detected and analyzed. The gas chromatography based its analysis only in the C1 to C5 range, in oil we have from C1 to C8.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Science ResearchSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207