Comprehensive Characterization and Mitigation of Hydraulic Fracturing-Induced Seismicity in Fox Creek, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The relationships among formation properties, fracturing operations, and induced earthquakes nucleated at distinctive moments and positions remain unclear. In this study, a complete data set on formations, seismicity, and fracturing treatments is collected in Fox Creek, Alberta, Canada. The data set is then used to characterize the induced seismicity and evaluate its susceptibility toward fracturing stimulations via integration of geology, geomechanics, and hydrology. Five mechanisms are identified to account for spatiotemporal activation of the nearby faults in Fox Creek, where all major events [with a moment magnitude (Mw) greater than 2.5] are caused by the increase in pore pressure and poroelastic stress during the fracturing operation. In addition, an integrated geological index (IGI) and a combined geomechanical index (CGI) are first proposed to indicate seismicity susceptibility, which is consistent with the spatial distribution of induced earthquakes. Finally, mitigation strategy results suggest that enlarging a hydraulic fracture-fault distance and decreasing a fracturing job size can reduce the risk of potential seismic activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".