MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392423438 · doi:10.1306/137123021283

7 Sequence Sets and Composite Sequences

2022· book-chapter· en· W4392423438 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin M. Bohacs, Remus Lazar, Tim Demko, Jeff Ottmann, Ken Potma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSequence (biology)Composite numberComputer scienceBiologyAlgorithmGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This chapter presents definitions, recognition criteria, and examples of sequence sets and composite sequences within a sequence-stratigraphic framework. This stratigraphic scale provides useful insights into shale-gas and tight-liquid plays with mudstone reservoirs that can be profitably grouped into four families based on stratal stacking at the sequence-set scale. Depositional sequences stack in progradational, aggradational, retrogradational, or degradational patterns to form sequence sets—exactly analogous to the stacking patterns of parasequences within depositional sequences discussed in Bohacs et al. (2022a, Chapter 6 this Memoir). Successions of sequence sets accumulate between lower-order sequence boundaries to form lower-order composite sequences containing lowstand, transgressive, and highstand sequence sets. Each of the component, “higher order,” sequences has all the stratal attributes of a depositional sequence, including constituent parasequences and systems tracts, that play a dominant role in controlling the distribution of reservoir, source, and sealing mudstones. Nonetheless, the relative development (thickness and character) of systems tracts in higher-order sequences is strongly influenced by the lower-order stacking pattern of those sequences. Thus, lowstand systems tracts tend to be better developed in depositional sequences within lowstand sequence sets, transgressive systems tracts are better developed in transgressive sequence sets, and so forth in each respective portion of the composite sequence. These repeated stacking patterns of strata and surfaces enable prediction of lithofacies character and distribution, both away from sample control and below the resolution of typical seismic-reflection data. For example, the most widespread, fine-grained, and biogenically dominated strata in the proximate shelfal areas of a composite sequence tend to occur near the top of the transgressive sequence set. Large-scale sequence-set stratigraphic analysis indicates that mudstone reservoirs do not occur randomly but have a repeated and predictable distribution within one of four families—and that such analysis is essential for understanding the localized variations in reservoir potential and distribution. The shared attributes within each family provide objective criteria for selecting appropriate analogs among mudstone reservoir plays and highlight the utility of conducting a basin-to-play–scale stratigraphic 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→