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

Simulation of geodynamic processes

2021· article· en· W3196439161 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
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