Application of XGBoost model for in-situ water saturation determination in Canadian oil-sands by LF-NMR and density data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water saturation determination is among the most challenging tasks in petrophysical well-logging, which directly impacts the decision-making process in hydrocarbon exploration and production. Low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF-NMR) measurements can provide reliable evaluation. However, quantification of oil and water volumes is problematic when their NMR signals are not distinct. To overcome this, we developed two machine learning frameworks for predicting relative water content in oil-sand samples using LF-NMR spin–spin (T2) relaxation and bulk density data to derive a model based on Extreme Gradient Boosting. The first one facilitates feature engineering based on empirical knowledge from the T2 relaxation distribution analysis domain and mutual information feature extraction technique, while the second model considers whole samples’ NMR T2-relaxation distribution. The NMR T2 distributions were obtained for 82 Canadian oil-sands samples at ambient and reservoir temperatures (164 data points). The true water content was determined by Dean-Stark extraction. The statistical scores confirm the strong generalization ability of the feature engineering LF-NMR model in predicting relative water content by Dean-Stark—root-mean-square error of 0.67% and mean-absolute error of 0.53% (R2 = 0.90). Results indicate that this approach can be extended for the improved in-situ water saturation evaluation by LF-NMR and bulk density measurements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".