MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196439161 · doi:10.51301/vest.su.2021.i4.03

Simulation of geodynamic processes

2021· article· en· W3196439161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
М. Nurpeissova, Kanay Rysbekov, Eugene Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Journal of Satbayev University · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan
KeywordsGeologySubsidenceTerrainGeodetic datumFossil fuelInterferometric synthetic aperture radarPetroleum engineeringGeodesyRemote sensingGeomorphologySynthetic aperture radarCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To select an optimal and environmentally friendly technology for oil and gas development, it is necessary to estimate in advance the likely disfigurement processes of the surface terrain. To this end, it is recommended to develop predictive geodynamic models prior to start of field development, taking into consideration the geological characteristics and tectonic activity of the area under investigation, as well as the specific features of the reservoir. Research methods. In this paper, two models of subsidence of the ground surface in a hydrocarbon field are considered: a parametric spatial model developed at Delft University of Technology and a model based on the Knoté influence function developed at the Canadian Center for Geodetic Engineering. The first method is more suitable for describing a smooth and gradual subsidence in deep gas reservoirs and allows you to assess the spatial-temporal pattern of movement of the ground surface. In the second method, geodynamic processes are modeled based on the functional relationship between reservoir compaction and subsidence of the day surface, taking into account the location of the oil reservoir, physical and mechanical properties of rocks, changes in reservoir pressure and the results of surface disfigurement monitoring and is recommended for oil fields. Research results. A comparative analysis of these methods is carried out on the example of the Tengiz oil and gas field in Western Kazakhstan. An evaluation of the developed model accuracy is carried out by comparing the calculated values ​​of soil subsidence with the data of radar interferometry, and estimates obtained by other researchers. Recommendations are given on the application of the considered methods in the generation of predictive models of oil and gas fields, the necessity of calculating the transfer coefficient of the reservoir compaction to the position of the day surface, taking into account the depth of the reservoir and the physical and mechanical properties of the rock massif, is indicated.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Journal of Satbayev UniversitySame topicMining and Gasification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207