MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288074082 · doi:10.1017/9781108774178.011

Seismicity Induced by the Development of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources

2022· book-chapter· en· W4288074082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityUnconventional oilGeologyFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringSeismologyEngineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource development in unconventional oil and gas plays is sometimes accompanied by unintended earthquakes, known as induced seismicity. To date, the largest such induced events have been the September 2016 5.8 M W Pawnee earthquake in Oklahoma, and the December 2018 5.2 M W earthquake in the Sichuan Basin. These earthquakes were triggered by different industrial processes, namely saltwater disposal (Pawnee) and hydraulic fracturing (Sichuan Basin). Current models indicate that such induced earthquakes occur by activation of a pre-existing fault system due to some combination of increased pore pressure, a change in fault-loading conditions arising from poroelastic effects, or precursory slow fault slip. This chapter provides a tutorial and review of basic underlying principles of induced seismicity and an overview of regulatory measures, along with several current research themes including tools for screening risk and forecasting maximum magnitude. These concepts are illustrated by case studies from the USA and western Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207