MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394745886 · doi:10.1007/s40789-024-00676-y

Development and technology status of energy storage in depleted gas reservoirs

2024· article· en· W4394745886 on OpenAlexaff
Jifang Wan, Yangqing Sun, Yuxian He, Wendong Ji, Jingcui Li, Liangliang Jiang, María José Jurado

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Coal Science & Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersPhilippine Council for Industry, Energy, and Emerging Technology Research and Development
KeywordsCompressed air energy storagePetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelSortingEnergy storageWaste managementEngineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Utilizing energy storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs can improve productivity while reducing power costs and is one of the best ways to achieve synergistic development of "Carbon Peak–Carbon Neutral" and "Underground Resource Utilization". Starting from the development of Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) technology, the site selection of CAES in depleted gas and oil reservoirs, the evolution mechanism of reservoir dynamic sealing, and the high-flow CAES and injection technology are summarized. It focuses on analyzing the characteristics, key equipment, reservoir construction, application scenarios and cost analysis of CAES projects, and sorting out the technical key points and existing difficulties. The development trend of CAES technology is proposed, and the future development path is scrutinized to provide reference for the research of CAES projects in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Graphical abstract

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations48
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Coal Science & TechnologySame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207