Generating a labeled data set to train machine learning algorithms for lithologic classification of drill cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite significant developments in the past few years in the application of machine learning algorithms for the lithologic classification of rock samples, publicly available labeled data sets are very scarce. We open source a fully labeled data set containing more than 16,000 scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of drill cutting samples—mounted on thin sections—from a low-permeability reservoir in western Canada. We develop a simplified image processing workflow to segment and isolate the rock chips into individual SEM images, which in turn are used to identify, classify, and quantify rock types based on textural characteristics. In addition, using this data set, we explore the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as a baseline tool for acceleration and automatization of rock-type classification. Without significant modifications to popular CNN models, we obtain an accuracy of approximately 90% for the test set. Results demonstrate the potential of CNN as a fast approach for lithologic classification in low-permeability siltstone reservoirs. In addition to making the data set publicly available, we believe our workflow to segment and isolate drill cutting samples in individual images of rock chips will facilitate future research of drill cuttings properties (e.g., lithology, porosity, and particle size) using machine learning algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".