MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320163330 · doi:10.38007/ml.2020.010303

Intelligent Identification of Reservoir Fluid in Daniudi Gas Field Based on AdaBoost Machine Learning Algorithm

2020· article· en· W4320163330 on OpenAlexaff
Junmin Gull

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning Theory and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaBoostComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Natural gas fieldArtificial intelligenceField (mathematics)Machine learningAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Petroleum engineeringEngineeringMathematicsNatural gasSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the large amount of data information in the reservoir, it is difficult to process or obtain accurate required parameters.There is a large amount of untreated gas in Daniudi gas field, and there are problems such as small wellhead, high temperature and rapid pressure change.Therefore, intelligent identification of reservoir fluid in Daniudi gas field is studied in this paper.Its purpose is to improve the recognition ability by using machine learning algorithm.This paper mainly uses the methods of experiment and comparison, selects 5 groups of data from the samples for comparison, and expounds the application of related algorithm models in reservoir fluids.The experimental data show that the error data of velocity density as input set and sensitive parameter are not very different, mostly within 1.But the input of sensitive parameters can get smaller error.Therefore, parameters with high sensitivity can be added for fluid identification.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Learning Theory and PracticeSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207