MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291753938 · doi:10.1190/image2022-3745367.1

Effectiveness of dip-in DAS observations for low-frequency strain and microseismic analysis: The CanDiD experiment

2022· article· en· W4291753938 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Eaton, Yuanyuan Ma, Chaoyi Wang, Kelly MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueSecond International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismAzimuthWirelineGeologySeismologyHydraulic fracturingEngineeringPetroleum engineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsOpticsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Dip-in-DAS (CanDiD) project involved wireline deployment of an optical fiber in a lateral well to record distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) observations. The project took place in January 2021 during hydraulic- fracturing operations at a multi-well pad. The program was carried out by the University of Calgary as part of the Microseismic Industry Consortium, in partnership with an oil and gas operator and several wireline and DAS service providers. The DAS recordings from zipper-frac completions in 6 horizontal wells show typical signatures of low-frequency strain signals associated with fracture-driven interactions (FDI’s or “frac hits”). These signals enabled fracture azimuth to be determined, which indicate a systematic variation in azimuth with depth in the reservoir zone. This variation is interpreted to represent a depth- dependent rotation in the maximum horizontal stress direction. A few atypical low-frequency signals are best explained by shear slip along horizontal planes of weakness. Using a machine-learning based approach, microseismic events were detected and processed, although it was not possible to obtain process hypocenters from a single fiber. In the same frequency band as the microseismic events, numerous coherent noise events with symmetrical linear moveout were observed in close proximity to the FDIs. The results of this investigation show the utility of dip-in DAS deployments to provide insights about fracture geometry and stress orientations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecond International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & EnergySame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207