MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208156321 · doi:10.3390/en14217131

Application of Gene Expression Programming (GEP) in Modeling Hydrocarbon Recovery in WAG Injection Process

2021· article· en· W3208156321 on OpenAlexafffund
Shokufe Afzali, Mohamad Mohamadi‐Baghmolaei, Sohrab Zendehboudi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGene expression programmingDimensionless quantityProcess (computing)Sensitivity (control systems)Mean squared errorMathematicsComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringEngineeringStatisticsMachine learningMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water alternating gas (WAG) injection has been successfully applied as a tertiary recovery technique. Forecasting WAG flooding performance using fast and robust models is of great importance to attain a better understanding of the process, optimize the operational conditions, and avoid high-cost blind tests in laboratory or pilot scales. In this study, we introduce a novel correlation to determine the performance of the near-miscible WAG flooding in strongly water-wet sandstones. We conduct dimensional analysis with Buckingham’s π theorem technique to generate dimensionless numbers using eight key parameters. Seven dimensionless numbers are employed as the input variables of the desired correlation for predicting the recovery factor of a near-miscible WAG injection. A verified mathematical model is used to generate the required training and testing data for the development of the correlation using a gene expression programming (GEP) algorithm. The provided data points are then separated into two subsets: training (67%) to develop the model and testing (33%) to assess the models’ capability. Conducting error analysis, statistical measures and graphical illustrations are provided to assess the effectiveness of the introduced model. The statistical analysis shows that the developed GEP-based correlation can generate target data with high precision such that the training phase leads to R2 = 92.85% and MSE = 1.38 × 10−3 and R2 = 91.93% and MSE = 4.30 × 10−3 are attained for the testing phase. The relative importance of the input dimensionless groups is also determined. According to the sensitivity analysis, decreasing the oil–water capillary number results in a significant reduction in RF in all cycles. Increasing the magnitudes of oil to gas viscosity ratio and oil to water viscosity ratio lowers the RF of each cycle. It is found that oil to gas viscosity ratio has a higher impact on RF value compared to oil to water viscosity ratio due to a higher viscosity gap between the gas and oil phases. It is expected that the GEP, as a fast and reliable tool, will be useful to find vital variables including relative permeability in complex transport phenomena such as three-phase flow in porous media.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207