MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403390525 · doi:10.1109/tim.2024.3480200

Incident Detection Adapting to the Drilling Depth for Geological Drilling Processes Based on Domain Adversarial Dual Graph Convolutional Network

2024· article· en· W4403390525 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Zhang, Wenkai Hu, Jing Zhou, Weihua Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDrillingAdversarial systemComputer scienceDual (grammatical number)GraphGeologyArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In geological drilling processes, it is of great importance to detect drilling incidents, so as to prevent serious consequences and improve the operational safety. However, prompt and accurate detection of drilling incidents is quite challenging, since the difference between data samples under normal and faulty states are usually inappreciable in the early stage of a drilling incident. Meanwhile, the formation commonly changes with the depth, making a model trained based on data from a certain depth hardly adapt to incident detection at different depths. Accordingly, this article proposes a new incident detection method adapting to the drilling depth for geological drilling processes based on the domain adversarial dual graph convolutional network (DADGCN). The contributions are threefold: 1) a temporal-spatial multifeature graph (TSMFG) construction method is designed to excavate the difference of adjacent samples under multiple states; 2) a dual graph convolution network (DGCN)-based incident detection method is proposed to mine the deep features in the graphs; 3) a DADGCN framework is designed to generalize the well-trained incident detection model to different drilling depths. The effectiveness and superiority of the proposed method are demonstrated by case studies involving real data. According to the results, the incident detection accuracy of DGCN reaches 99% under the same drilling depth, and the accuracy of DADGCN exceeds 94% when adapting to different drilling depths, which are much better compared to other state-of-the-art methods.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207