MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288067487 · doi:10.3390/en15155447

Global Progress in Oil and Gas Well Research Using Bibliometric Analysis Based on VOSviewer and CiteSpace

2022· article· en· W4288067487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pan Zhang, Yongjun Du, Sijie Han, Qingan Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFossil fuelChinaEngineeringPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceRegional scienceGeographyArchaeologyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies related to oil and gas wells have attracted worldwide interest due to the increasing energy shortfall and the requirement of sustainable development and environmental protection. However, the state of oil and gas wells in terms of research characteristics, technological megatrends, article-produced patterns, leading study items, hot topics, and frontiers is unclear. This work is aimed at filling the research gaps by performing a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 6197 articles related to oil and gas wells published between 1900 and 2021. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used as the main data analysis and visualization tools. The analysis shows that the annual variation of article numbers, interdisciplinary numbers, and cumulative citations followed exponential growth. Oil and gas well research has promoted the expansion of research fields such as engineering, energy and fuels, geology, environmental sciences and ecology, materials science, and chemistry. The top 10 influential studies mainly focused on shale gas extraction and its impact on the environment. More studies were produced by larger author teams and inter-institution collaborations. Elkatatny and Guo have greatly contributed to the application of artificial intelligence in oil and gas wells. The two most contributing institutions were the Southwest Petr Univ and China Univ Petr from China. The People’s Republic of China, the US, and Canada were the countries with the most contributions to the development of oil and gas wells. The authoritative journal in engineering technology was J Petrol Sci Eng, in environment technology was Environ Sci Technol, in geology was Aapg Bull, and in materials was Cement Concrete Res. The keyword co-occurrence network cluster analysis indicated that oil well cement, new energy development, machine learning, hydraulic fracturing, and natural gas and oil wells are the predominant research topics. The research frontiers were oil extraction and its harmful components (1992–2016), oil and gas wells (1997–2016), porous media (2007–2016), and hydrogen and shale gas (2012–2021). This paper comprehensively and quantitatively analyzes all aspects of oil and gas well research for the first time and presents valuable information about active and authoritative research entities, cooperation patterns, technology trends, hotspots, and frontiers. Therefore, it can help governments, policymakers, related companies, and the scientific community understand the global progress in oil and gas well research and provide a reference for technology development and application.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0120.109
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207