Anisotropic behavior and mechanical characteristics of the Montney Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the rock mechanics and anisotropic properties of the Montney Formation, Alberta, through two sets of experiments: unconfined compressive strength tests and triaxial compression tests, supplemented by ultrasonic wave velocity measurements. These tests enabled the calculation of dynamic and static stiffness properties and Thomsen anisotropy parameters (ε, δ, γ). Our findings reveal that the Montney Formation exhibits weak anisotropy, with ε values generally below 0.10, contrasting with other strongly anisotropic shale formations. Specimens exhibiting higher clay content and total organic carbon levels show more pronounced anisotropy. Static measurements exhibit a higher degree of anisotropy compared to dynamic measurements. The investigation also explored loading and unloading stiffness parameters, noting a higher E loading-to-unloading ratio for rock specimens with lower elastic properties. This provides important information on the rock's response to stress path effects during stimulation and exploitation. The study also discusses other rock mechanics parameters including Poisson's ratio, tensile strength, and brittleness. The research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the geomechanical and petrophysical behavior of the Montney Formation, aiding reservoir characterization and hydrocarbon exploration and production.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".