The history of Madison Group exploration and production in the North Dakota Williston Basin with an update on Madison Group source rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Williston Basin has proven to be a global super basin in terms of oil production and reserves (Sonnenberg, 2020). Although recent production in the basin has been dominated by the Middle Member of the Bakken Formation, the Madison Group has yielded over a billion barrels of oil since 1951. The Madison Group consists of the Charles, Mission Canyon, and Lodgepole formations with various members in each. These formations are found in both the United States and Canada and led Williston Basin production until 2008. As with many petroleum plays, the Williston Basin enticed oil men for many decades with the prospect of oil before finally yielding to success. Success, which is so often accompanied by a bit of good fortune, is a matter of finances, persistence, and technology, ultimately paving the way to successful commercial wells. Many factors contributed to the ongoing production results in the basin and include seismic, horizontal drilling, and completion technologies, and of course, good geological assessments. The history of production in the basin is also detailed by the history of petroleum geochemistry. Source rock and oil geochemistry progressed from scratch tests, test tube pyrolysis, and standard physicochemical properties, such as API gravity, to detailed chemical investigations including high resolution gas chromatography and biomarker analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".