Quantitative Characterization of Heterogeneity in Different Reservoir Spaces of Low‐Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs and Its Influence on Physical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex pore structure of low‐permeability sandstone reservoir makes it difficult to characterize the heterogeneity of pore throat. Taking the reservoir of Sanjianfang formation in QL oilfield as an example, the fractal dimension of different storage spaces is calculated by using fractal theory based on casting thin section, scanning electron microscope, and high‐pressure mercury injection, and the correlation between porosity, permeability, and contribution of different storage space permeabilities is analyzed. The results show that the reservoir of Sanjianfang formation in QL oilfield mainly develops small pores, fine pores, and micropores, and the fractal dimension of micropore structure is between 2.6044 and 2.9982, with an average value of 2.8316. The more complex the pore structure is, the stronger the microheterogeneity is. The higher the fractal dimension, the more complex the pore structure and the smaller the porosity and permeability. The fractal dimensions of small pores, fine pores, and micropores increase successively with the decrease in pore radius, and the microstructure heterogeneity of large pores is weaker than that of small pores. It provides a theoretical basis for the exploration and development of low‐permeability sandstone reservoirs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".