MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408011686 · doi:10.1061/jleed9.eyeng-5667

Three-Dimensional Geological Engineering Double Desert Evaluation of Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

2025· article· en· W4408011686 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

VenueJournal of Energy Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Desert (philosophy)Geotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offshore low-permeability sandstones with poor physical properties and high nonhomogeneity are effective modification measures using hydraulic fracturing, but they are costly and risky, and conducting fracability evaluations is a necessary measure to ensure the successful implementation of low-permeability sandstones. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out geological and engineering sweet spot evaluations. The engineering sweet spot is mainly aimed at forming a complex subnetwork, considering factors such as energy brittleness, fracture mechanics, quantification of natural fractures, etc., along with adopting the hierarchical analysis method and entropy weighting method to establish a model for evaluating the fracability of the fracture network. The geological sweet spot is based on logging interpretation data, considering mud, pore space, and gas-bearing factors, and the factor analysis method is used to establish a single-well geological sweet spot evaluation model. Based on the previous geological and engineering sweet spot evaluation model and combined with seismic wave inversion, a three-dimensional (3D) geological and engineering double sweet spot evaluation model was established, and the reservoir types were subdivided into Class I, Class II, and Class III. In addition, the capacity prediction under different reservoir types was carried out, and the sandstone reservoir double-sweet spot evaluation template was established by combining the geological and engineering sweet spot evaluation results corresponding to different reservoir types. Taking the DF13-1-1 well as an example, the geoengineering fracability index is calculated, and the production is predicted and compared with the actual production to verify that the model is more reliable.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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