Evaluation of a Field-Wide Post-Steam In-Situ Combustion Performance in a Heavy Oil Reservoir in China
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
Abstract We evaluated the performance of a field-wide post-steam in-situ combustion (ISC) project conducted in a complex heavy oil reservoir in China using laboratory one-dimensional combustion experiments, reservoir simulation outputs, and data collected from the field application. The commercial ISC project showed vastly different production performances in different regions of the field and two types of representative well groups were identified. Type I group has a low oil viscosity (<8000 mPa.s) and a high steam-flooded recovery factor (>30%); after ISC treatment, these producers show a high initial water cut, while some experience channeling issues and hence produce a large quantity of flue gas. Type II group has a high oil viscosity (>20000 mPa.s) and a low cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) recovery factor (15-20%); these producers have a high air injection pressure exceeding the fracture pressure. Corresponding remedial methods were designed and applied to these two well groups. Presently, the evaluation methods described in this paper are being applied in the field, and initial results have been acquired.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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