The Influence of Lamina Density and Occurrence on the Permeability of Lamellar Shale after Hydration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characteristics of laminae in lamellar shale oil reservoirs have important influences on reservoir parameters, especially permeability. In order to explore the influence of lamina density and occurrence on the permeability of lamellar shale after hydration, we studied the lamellar shale in the Chang 7 member of the Yanchang Formation of Triassic in Ordos Basin. By comparing the permeability of bedding shale and lamellar shale with different densities of laminae, it was found that the permeability anisotropy of lamellar shale was stronger. In the direction parallel to the lamina, the permeability increased approximately linearly with an increase in lamina density. The effect of hydration on rock micropore structure and permeability was studied by soaking shale in different fluids. Most of the microfracture in the lamellar shale was parallel to the lamina direction, and hydration led to a widening of the microfracture, which led to the most obvious increase in permeability parallel to the lamina. Collectively, the research results proved that lamina density, occurrence, and hydration have a significant influence on the permeability anisotropy of lamellar shale.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".