MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394921693 · doi:10.1002/ghg.2275

Field pilots of carbon dioxide huff and puff method at a shale oil field

2024· article· en· W4394921693 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGreenhouse Gases Science and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil shaleOil fieldShale gasOil viscosityField (mathematics)Carbon dioxideShale oilEnhanced oil recoveryEnvironmental scienceEngineeringViscosityGeologyWaste managementMaterials scienceChemistryMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract CO 2 huff and puff is a widely used enhanced oil recovery method in many oil fields, but its implementations in shale fields is scarce. This paper reports trials of CO 2 huff and puff in a shale field in China. Laboratory studies revealed that CO 2 effectively reduced oil viscosity, increased oil volume, and improved oil recovery under miscible conditions. For the three wells that received CO 2 huff and puff treatments, one well showed satisfactory results, while the other two wells demonstrated poor economics. Discussions and recommendations are made based on field experiences. © 2024 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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