MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of Rock Breaking Parameters by Combing Mechanical Specific Energy Theory and Random Forest Algorithm

2024· article· en· W4404372096 on OpenAlexaff
Hua-yan Mu, Jinsheng Sun, Teng-fei Dong, Yinbo He

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombingAlgorithmRandom forestComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceStatisticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the key indicators to evaluate drilling efficiency, mechanical rate of penetration (ROP) and mechanical specific energy (MSE) are affected by many uncertain factors. In the actual drilling process, it is often necessary to adjust the parameters to achieve speed and efficiency. A dual-objective model is established considering the maximization of ROP and the minimization of MSE. Which combined with the theory of mechanical specific energy and the principle of multi-objective optimization, the model parameter weights are determined by the feature importance in the random forest regression model, and the value range of rock breaking parameter is optimized, realize the fusion of physical model and data model. The results show that, in the four strata of well X, the average ROP of T2k1 stratum is increased by 48.6% and the average MSE is decreased by 26.6%, the average ROP of T1b3 stratum is increased by 89.9% and the average MSE is decreased by 33.8%, the average ROP of the T1b2 stratum was increased by 41.3% and the average MSE was decreased by 39.0%, the average ROP of the T1b1 stratum was increased by 29.2% and the average MSE was decreased by 37.3%, which met the dual objectives of maximizing the ROP and minimizing the MSE. Compared with the traditional single-objective optimization method, the established dual-objective model is more in line with the needs of complex drilling engineering, and the fusion of physical model and data model can reduce certain human error.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207