Hydrogen diffusion in representative geological formations used for underground storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) commonly consider three main types of geological formations, including depleted natural gas/oil fields and saline aquifers of sedimentary rock formations, both overlaid with impermeable cap rock (such as shale and salt rock), as well as salt dome caverns and bedded salt formations.This work studies a total of seven representative rock samples from typical geological formations encountered at UHS, such as Berea sandstone, Crab Orchard sandstone (with smaller grain sizes and associated lower permeability than Berea sandstone), Guelph dolomite, and Indiana limestone (serving as examples of depleted sandstone or carbonate oil/gas reservoirs & saline aquifers) with Woodford claystone and Haynesville Shale as cap rocks, as well as Himalayan salt rock for UHS and as cap rock.The important petrophysical attributes (properties of rocks and fluids, as well as fluid-rock interactions) for this wide range of geological rocks are not available or sufficiently studied with respect to different methodologies, vast lithological difference, and sample scale effect, with a particular focus on how microscopic pore structure (especially pore connectivity) influences macroscopic fluid flow and chemical transport [1][2].In conjuction with a set of complementary approaches for pore structure characterization, this work utilizes several custom designed apparatuses (e.g., gas diffusion) to provide the essential information of H 2 diffusivity and tortuosity of natural rocks, in the presence of other gases (CH 4 , CO 2 , and O 2 ), in assessing the effectiveness of UHS in typical gological formations [3].
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".