MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283119122 · doi:10.3390/min12060776

Verification and Application of Sequence Stratigraphy to Reservoir Characterization of Horn River Basin, Canada

2022· article· en· W4283119122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juhwan Woo, Jiyoung Choi, Seok‐Hoon Yoon, Chul Woo Rhee

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPetrophysicsGeologySequence stratigraphySedimentary depositional environmentOil shaleStratigraphyTotal organic carbonSequence (biology)Reservoir modelingKerogenStructural basinGeochemistryPaleontologyMineralogyPetrologySource rockPorosityPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shale reservoirs, the most important unconventional resource, are difficult to characterize. Shale formations require detailed interpretation of geological, petrophysical, and geochemical analyses, and an integration of these disciplines. In terms of geological interpretation, the commonly used sequence stratigraphy analysis includes a lithofacies analysis. The application of sequence stratigraphy to shales facilitates the ability to relate between lithofacies and mineral composition, petrophysical parameters, and kerogen contents, which are affected by depositional setting. The classification of lithofacies is indispensable for reservoir quality prediction. In this study, porosity, permeability, and TOC content largely depend on lithofacies, and their correlation coefficient is relatively high. The sequence stratigraphic interpretation shows that organic carbon content usually increases within the maximum flooding surfaces and decreases stepwise. However, the relationship between total organic carbon contents and systems tract is less direct and redox dependent.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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