MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126624979 · doi:10.1190/geo2020-0538.1

Reexamination of controlled-source electromagnetic inversion at the Lona prospect, Orphan Basin, Canada

2021· article· en· W3126624979 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Michael Hoversten, Randall L. Mackie, Yong Hua

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsChevron (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInversion (geology)LithologyCretaceousSeismic inversionStructural basinHydrocarbon explorationSeismologyUnconformityRegional geologyPetrologyGeophysicsGeomorphologyPaleontologyAzimuthVolcanismTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In 2010, an exploration well was drilled at the Lona prospect in the Orphan Basin, Canada, whose location was based primarily on a structural high at the base of a Cretaceous unconformity. Additionally, a 3D inversion of controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) data collected in 2007 and 2009 indicated elevated resistivities that roughly correlated with the structural high, indicating the possibility of hydrocarbon-saturated sediments. The well did not encounter hydrocarbons, and the results were considered a false positive. In an effort to better understand the geologic significance of the elevated resistivity anomaly, we have reexamined the original interpretation of the Lona prospect by using a seismic image-guided inversion algorithm to analyze CSEM data from a synthetic model and the field data and correlate those results with lithology predictions from seismic amplitude versus angle inversions. We conclude that the anomalously high resistivities seen are due to the high volumes of cemented sand lithology and not to the presence of hydrocarbons. We speculate that if the results shown here had been available at the time, CSEM would not have provided support to the decision to drill.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207