MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224120678 · doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.836977

Hydrocarbon Charge History of the Upper Paleozoic, Ordos Basin as Revealed by Fluid Inclusions

2022· article· en· W4224120678 on OpenAlexaff
Qing Cao, Xinshan Wei, Zhangxin Chen, Jingzhou Zhao, Mingju Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEducation Department of Shaanxi Province
KeywordsFluid inclusionsGeologyPetrographyPaleozoicHydrocarbonCretaceousNatural gasGeochemistryStructural basinQuartzCalciteMineralogyInclusion (mineral)PaleontologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The petrographic characteristics of fluid inclusions of the main gas-bearing intervals of the Upper Paleozoic in the Ordos Basin are analyzed by means of plane-polarized light, fluorescence microscopy, and microthermometry. With the burial history of the basin, the charging and enrichment of natural gas in low-permeability reservoirs are also studied through a comparison of parameters such as the homogenization temperature and freezing temperature of aqueous inclusions associated with hydrocarbon inclusions. A comprehensive analysis of the assemblage characteristics, components, and temperature of fluid inclusions of the Upper Paleozoic shows that the abundance, attitude, and composition of gaseous hydrocarbon inclusions can reflect petroleum enrichment in low-permeability reservoirs. The homogenization temperature and freezing temperature of aqueous inclusions associated with gaseous hydrocarbon inclusions show no obvious discontinuities, indicating that natural gas charging was a long and continuous process since the Late Triassic to Early Cretaceous (210–100 Ma) and natural gas accumulation mainly occurred during the Early Cretaceous (125–100 Ma).

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysicsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207