MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203041897 · doi:10.1155/2021/2535284

Chemical Potential-Based Modeling of Shale Gas Transport

2021· article· en· W3203041897 on OpenAlexaff
Jisheng Kou, Lingyun Chen, Amgad Salama, Jianchao Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueGeofluids · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOil shaleHelmholtz free energyDissipationFlow (mathematics)Shale gasEnergy (signal processing)MechanicsPetroleum engineeringComputer simulationPressure gradientGeologyApplied mathematicsThermodynamicsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shale gas plays an increasingly important role in the current energy industry. Modeling of gas flow in shale media has become a crucial and useful tool to estimate shale gas production accurately. The second law of thermodynamics provides a theoretical criterion to justify any promising model, but it has been never fully considered in the existing models of shale gas. In this paper, a new mathematical model of gas flow in shale formations is proposed, which uses gas density instead of pressure as the primary variable. A distinctive feature of the model is to employ chemical potential gradient rather than pressure gradient as the primary driving force. This allows to prove that the proposed model obeys an energy dissipation law, and thus, the second law of thermodynamics is satisfied. Moreover, on the basis of energy factorization approach for the Helmholtz free energy density, an efficient, linear, energy stable semi-implicit numerical scheme is proposed for the proposed model. Numerical experiments are also performed to validate the model and numerical method.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeofluidsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207