MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391749677 · doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2024.101159

Ground deformation due to natural resource extraction in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2024· article· en· W4391749677 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing Applications Society and Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyInterferometric synthetic aperture radarStructural basinDeformation (meteorology)Sedimentary rockSynthetic aperture radarSedimentary basinGroundwaterTectonicsGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyPaleontologyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study links multiple natural resource extraction activities in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) with observations of ground deformation. Sentinel-1, RADARSAT-2,and RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data acquired as early as 2015 were used to compute deformation maps and ground deformation time series. Ground deformation produced by induced earthquakes (2015 Mw 4.6 in British Columbia and 2022/23 Mw 5.1/4.6 in Alberta; and 2017/18 Mw 5.0/4.2 slow slip events in British Columbia) were mapped with individual interferograms. Long-lasting ground deformation due to Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) enhanced oil recovery and coal and potash underground mining were mapped with the Multidimensional Small Baseline Subset (MSBAS) time series method. When both ascending and descending data were available, MSBAS was used to compute two-dimensional (2D) deformation time series and rates. It was observed that seismic and aseismic ground deformation due to hydraulic fracturing and saltwater injection in WCSB had a similar surface expression (paired anomaly), spatial extent (5-10 km) and orientation (striking NW-SE), suggesting that while triggering processes might be technogenic. In the case of hydraulic fracturing, ground deformation appeared soon after the beginning of the operation, while not with saltwater injection, as it took years. The source mechanism of the 2015 Mw 4.6 earthquake was obtained through inverse modelling of the two descending interferograms. The rectangular source model corresponded to a fault at 1.98 ± 0.09 km depth, with 126 ± 7° strike, 14 ± 2° dip, 72 ± 7° rake, 1.61 ± 0.24 km width, 2.54 ± 0.23 km length, and 0.19 ± 0.07 m slip. In the case of in-situ enhanced oil recovery, ground deformation varied significantly depending on the technique. Continuous uplift observed at the SAGD site had a rate of only about 0.05 m/year, while reversible uplift and subsidence at CSS sites exceeded 0.2 m/month, even though wells in both cases were located at approximately similar depths (380 m for SAGD vs 520 m for CSS). In the case of underground mining, the spatial extent of subsidence depended on the extraction depth (200-500 m for coal vs 1000 m for potash). When a mining operation was conducted in an area with topographic relief, horizontal deformation was observed in addition to subsidence. Various observed deformation signals may precede more consequential deformation events.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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