MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404619231 · doi:10.1002/ese3.1918

Experimental Study of Imbibition Characteristics During the Soaking Stage After Fracturing in Tight Reservoirs

2024· article· en· W4404619231 on OpenAlexaff
Hailong Zhao, Long Xu, Ziqing Liu, Shifan Wu, Houjian Gong, Yajun Li, Mingzhe Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Science & Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsImbibitionStage (stratigraphy)Petroleum engineeringGeologyFracturing fluidMulti stagePetrologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The soaking stage is vital for oil production after fracturing in tight reservoirs. However, the roles and contributions of spontaneous imbibition (SI) and forced displacement imbibition (FDI) during this stage are poorly understood. This study gave an in‐depth insight on the imbibition characteristics during the soaking stage under non‐zero initial water saturation conditions by static soaking and dynamic waterflooding of the core. The results indicate that the fluid absorbed by SI in the core is short‐ranged. After SI, there is still a substantial amount of remain oil (30.7%) that can be displaced by subsequent FDI. SI considerably drives oil recovery in small pores (10–100 nm), whereas FDI is more effective in large pores (500–1000 nm). Controlling the rate of fracturing water flowing into the matrix from the fracture can enhance the combined effect of SI and FDI. For reservoirs with high initial water saturation, enhancing FDI effect during the soaking stage is favorable for oil 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Science & EngineeringSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207